Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of Northumberland. issued under the direction of the Northumberland county history committee"

See other formats


)f  Northm 








//,>/■  .1 













<    -c 

J      09 



Z      = 




History  of  Northumberland 


WOOLER,       AND       FORD 

By    KENNETH    H.    VICKERS,    M.A. 





V,  11 


The  present  volume  deals  with  a  larger  area  than  has  been  before 
attempted  by  the  Committee,  but  it  was  felt  to  be  desirable  to  cover 
as  much  ground  as  possible  in  view  of  the  large  part  of  Northumber- 
land not  yet  touched.  Originally  it  was  intended  to  include  the 
parishes  of  Chatton  and  Lowick — indeed,  the  portions  dealing  with 
Lowick  are  almost  completely  ready  in  manuscript — but,  with  the 
most  severe  compression,  it  was  possible  to  include  in  this  volume  no 
more  than  the  parishes  of  Carham,  Branxton,  Kirknewton,  Wooler  and 
Ford.  The  Committee  has  followed  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  boun- 
daries as  the  guide  to  its  work,  and  thus  Wooler  is  taken  to  comprise 
the  townships  of  Wooler  and  Fenton  and  not  the  more  compact  area 
covered  by  the  modern  parish. 

The  Committee  regrets  the  delay  which  has  arisen  in  publishing 
the  volume.  The  work  was  undertaken  in  war  time,  when  everyone  had 
more  to  do  than  he  could  accomplish;  it  was  clearly  recognised  from 
the  first  that  the  editor  could  devote  only  a  small  portion  of  his 
time  to  the  work,  while  there  have  been  considerable  delays  due  to 
other  causes. 

The  editor  had  hoped  to  include  in  this  volume  a  detailed  biblio- 
graphy which  would  have  been  a  useful  basis  for  the  study  of 
Northumbrian  History.  Considerations  of  space  have  forbidden  this, 
but  an  explanation  of  the  method  followed  in  the  notes  and  of  some 
of   the   short    titles   used    is   necessary.      Where   a   document    is   to   be 



found  printed  or  transcribed  in  some  book  or  collection  a  line  (thus — ) 
has  been  placed  between  the  two  references.  Thus  "Inq.  p.m.  30 
Hen.  III.  No.  15 — Bain.  Cal.  of  Documents,"  implies  that  the  docu- 
ment is  the  return  of  an  inquisition  post  mortem  preserved  in  the 
Public  Record  Office,  and  printed  or  abstracted  in  Bain's  Calendar  of 
Documents  Relating  to  Scotland.  As  to  short  titles  "Feet  of  Fines, 
i6th  Cent."  refers  to  a  volume  of  i6th  Cent.  Feet  of  Fines  in  the 
possession  of  the  Committee,  "Duke's  Transcripts"  to  the  transcripts 
of  documents  relating  to  Northumberland  preserved  at  the  Public 
Record  Office,  made  at  the  expense  of  the  late  Dukes  of  Northumber- 
land and  very  kindly  put  at  the  service  of  the  Committee  by  His 
Grace,  "  Raine,  Testamenta,  "  to  abstracts  of  wills,  made  by  the  late  Rev. 
James  Raine,  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Committee,  "Lambert  MS." 
to  notes  made  from  documents,  many  of  them  now  lost  or  inaccessible, 
also  in  the  possession  of  the  Committee,  and  "Belvoir  Deeds"  to 
the  deeds  relating  to  the  properties  of  the  family  of  Manners  now 
preserved  in  the  Duke  of  Rutland's  Muniment  Room  at  Belvoir  Castle. 
The  cartulary  of  the  priory  of  Kirkham — cited  as  "  Kirkham  Cartu- 
lary"— is  preserved  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  under  the  press 
mark  Fairfax  MS.7.  In  the  later  portion  of  the  volume  frequent  refer- 
ences will  be  found  to  "Lord  Joicey's  Deeds"  and  "  Waterford 
Documents."  These  were  originally  one  collection  of  documents,  but 
when  Lord  Joicey  bought  Ford,  all  the  deeds  relating  to  this  property 
were  separated  from  the  rest  and  handed  to  him.  The  remainder  of 
those  relating  to  Northumberland,  described  in  the  text  as  "Waterford 
Documents,"  are  now  deposited  in  the  Newcastle  Public  Library. 
The  volume  and  page  references  given  in  the  notes  refer  to  a  most 
useful  calendar  of  the  original  undivided  collection  in  the  possession 
of  the  Committee,  made  by  Dr.  Craster  of  the  Bodleian  Library  and 
editor  of   the   last   three   volumes  of   this   History. 


The  Committee  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  landowners  of  the 
district,  all  of  whom,  with  one  exception,  gave  everv  facility  to  the 
editor  for  examining  the  deeds  of  their  properties,  and  in  particular 
thanks  are  due  to  the  following  in  whose  custody  various  deeds  were 
placed: — Messrs.  J.  D.  &  N.  D.  Walker,  Newcastle-upon-Tyne; 
Messrs.  Tiffen  &  Henderson,  Berwick-upon-Tweed;  Messrs.  W.  &  B. 
D.  Gibson,  Hexham;  The  British  Linen  Bank,  Berwick-upon-Tweed; 
The  Charity  Commissioners,  London;  Messrs.  Dees  &  Thompson, 
Newcastle-upon-T\'ne ;  Messrs.  Harrison  &  Sons,  Welshpool;  Messrs. 
C.  D.  Forster  &  Lester,  Newcastle-upon-T\Tie ;  Messrs.  Charles  Percy 
&  Son,  Alnwick;  Messrs.  Leadbitter  &  Harvey,  Newcastle-upon-Tviie ; 
Messrs.  Herbert  Smith  &  Co.,  London;  Lloyds  Bank,  Newcastle -upon - 
T\Tie.  Mr.  A.  D.  Minton-Senhouse  has  kindly  placed  the  diocesan 
records  at  the  disposal  of  the  editor,  while  Mr.  James  Cleghom  has 
given  untiring  assistance,  which  his  intimate  knowledge  of  the  district 
has  rendered  invaluable.  Professor  Mawer,  formerly  of  Armstrong 
College  and  now  of  Liverpool  University,  very  kindly  provided  the 
notes  on  the  place  names  before  his  valuable  work  on  the  Place 
Names  of  Northumberland  and  Durham  was  published.  Dr.  F.  W. 
Dendy  has  taken  great  interest  and  has  given  frequent  help  in  the 
work,  and  together  with  Mr.  A.  Hamilton  Thompson,  Mr.  R.  Blair 
and  Mr.  C.  H.  Hunter  Blair  has  read  the  proofs.  To  Mr.  Hamilton 
Thompson  in  particular  the  editor  owes  very  special  thanks  for  the 
elucidation  of  many  points  of  ecclesiastical  history,  help  readily  given 
even  before  he  became  a  member  of  the  Committee.  Above  all  the 
editor  owes  much  to  Dr.  H.  H.  E.  Craster,  not  only  for  generous 
help  and  advice  at  the  inception  of  his  task,  but  for  the  way  in 
which  so  many  of  the  deeds  relating  to  this  district  have  been 
calendared  by  him. 

vni  PREFACE. 

Nearl\-    all    the    modern    pedigrees    have   been   prepared    by    Mr.    J. 
Crawford    Hodgson   with    the    assistance    of   Mr.    H.    M.    Wood,    whose 
unrivalled  knowledge  of  parish  registers  has  been  placed  at  tlic  service 
of  the  Committee.      Mr.   C.   H.   Hunter  Blair  has  prepared  the  plates 
of  seals  and   has  provided   the  armorial  descriptions   in   the  pedigrees. 
The  section  on  the  geology  of  the  district  has  been  written  by  Pro- 
fessor E.  J.  Garwood,  to  whom  the  thanks  of  the  Committee  are  due. 
The  grateful  thanks  of  the  Committee  are  also  offered   to  Lord  Joicey 
for    a    generous    contribution    towards    the    cost    of    the    illustrations. 
These   have   been   prepared    by   a   sub-committee   presided   over   by   Mr. 
W.    H.    Knowles,    who    has    once    more    contributed    the    architectural 
descriptions  and  plans  of  ancient  buildings.     The  frontispiece  in  colour 
is    a    new    departure,    and    the    extra    cost    thereof    has    been    in    part 
provided  by  Sir  George  Renwick,  Bart.,  and  Mr.  Walter  S.  Corder,  the 
latter  of  whom  has  given  great  assistance  in  selecting  the  illustrations. 
Drawings  have  been  specially  made  for  this  volume,  as  for  some  of  its 
predecessors,  by  Mr.   R.  J.  S.  Bertram.     The  index  has  been  made  by 
Mrs.    Tyrrell. 



Corrigenda  et  Addenda 
Introduction     ... 
Geology  of  the  District 





Ecclesiastical  History 
Carham  Township 
Wark  Township 
Wark  Castle 
Learmouth  Township 
MiNDRUM  Township 
DowNHAM  Township 
Moneylaws  Township 
Presson  Township 

Ecclesiastical  History 
Branxton  Township 

Ecclesiastical  History 
Lanton  Township 
Kirknewton  Township... 
West  Newton  Township 
KiLHAM  Township 
Paston  Township 

Coldsmouth  and  Thompson's  Walls  Township 
HowTEL  Township 
Crookhouse  Township  ... 
CouPLAND  Township 
Akeld  Township 
Yeavering  Township     ... 
Milfield  Township 
Hethpool  Township 
Cheviot  Township  (Grey's  Forest  and  Selby's  Forest) 


Ecclesiastical  History 
WooLER  Township 
Fenton  Township 










Ecclesiastical  History 

Ford  Township  ... 

Hetherslaw  and  Flodden  Township    ... 

Crookham  Township 


Etal  Township  ... 

Compton  of  Carham 
Roos  of  Wark 
Davison  of  Branxton 
Corbet  of  Lanton 
Strother  of  Kirknewton 
Baxter  of  Lanton 
James  of  Kirkne^vton 
Kilham  of  Kilham 
Archer  of  Kilham 
Selby  of  Paston  (First  Line) 
Selby  of  Paston  (Second  Line) 
Howtel  of  Howtcl 
Burrell  of  Howtel 
Pinkerton  of  Reedsford   ... 
Coupland  of  Coupland 
CuUey  of  Coupland  Castle 

Grey  of  MilficW 

Reed,  of  Hcthpool 

Coheirs  of  Sarah,  wife  of  Robert  Roddam 

Selby  of  Goldscleugh 

Walker  of  Goldscleugh  and  Broad  Strother 

Muschamp  of  Wooler 

Isaacson,  of  Newcastle  and  Fenton 

Heron  of  Ford     ...  ...• 

Carr  of  Ford 
Blake  of  Ford  Castle 
Winkles  and  Ogle 
Askew  of  Pallinsbum 
Manners  of  Etal ... 
Carr  of  Etal 




































Etal  Castle   ...  ...  


I     Wark  and  the   Tweed 
II     Seals  of  Branxton,  Heron   and  Muschamp     ... 

III  Seals  of  Coupland,  Strother,  Manners  and  Grey 

IV  Coupland  Castle 
V     Ford  Castle  ... 

VI     Etal  Castle 



to  face  page  i . 








1  Wark,  Thatched  Cottage 

2  Wark  Castle,  Time  of  Elizabeth 

3  Wark  Castle  from  the  East,  1920 

4  Branxton,  Chancel  Arch 

5  Cottages  at  Branxton 

6  Kirknewton  Church,  The  Chancel 

7  The  Adoration  of  the  Magi   ... 

8  Howtcl  Tower  from  the  North-East 

9  Plan  of  Howtel  Tower 

10  Coupland  Castle  cireo  1 8 10   ... 

11  Interior  of  Basement,  Akeld  Tower  ... 

12  Ford  Church,  1836   ... 

13  Plan  of  Ford  Church  before  Restoration 

14  Parson's  Tower,  Ford 

15  Ford  Forge... 

16  Plan  and  Elevation  of  Ford  Castle  in  1716 

1 7  View  of  Ford  Castle 
iS  Plan  of  Ford  Castle,  Ground  Plan 

19  Plan  of  N.W.  Tower,  Ford  Castle,  Below  Basement 

20  Plan  of  N.W.  Tower,  Ford  Castle,  Upper  Floor 

21  Plan  of  Ford  Castle,  First  Floor 

22  Ford  Castle  from  the  North-West 

23  Etal  Castle,  Ground  Floor  Plan 

24  Etal  Castle,  Upper  Floor  of  Gate  House 

25  Etal  Castle,  Gate  House,  Upper  Floor  S.E. 

26  Etal  Castle,  Gate  House  from  North-West 

27  Etal  Castle,  Plan  of  Keep 

28  Etal  Castle,  West  End  of  Keep 











Page  182,  last  line,  after  '  Stones'  insert  an  inverted  comma. 

Page  190,  line  20,  for  '  1259 '  read  '  1359-' 

Page  232,  line  22,  for  '  M.iy  1300  '  read  '  May  1330.' 

Page  244,  line  23,  for  '  1658  '  read  '  1568.' 

Page  253,  last  line,  for  '  1390 '  read  '  1490.' 

Page  271,  line  18,  for  '  association  '  read  '  associations.' 

Page  278,  note  3,  line  2,  for  '  Robert  Roos  '  read  '  Robert  Ross.' 

Page  122,  Carram  Incumbents. 

1561,  1577.  John  Blaket,  Curator  of  the  parish  church  of  Carham  (Ministers 
Accounts,  Compotus  Thome  Graye,  militis,  Michaelmas  3  Ehz.  to 
Michaelmas  4  Eliz.   and  Michaelmas   19  Eliz.    to  Michaelmas  20  Eliz.) 

1596,  1605.  Richard  Lee.  Curate  of  Carham,  20th  Feb.  1596.  Curate  but  '  senex 
et  absens  '   15th  March,  1605,  (Consistory  Court  Visitation  Books). 

1663.  Adam    Felbridge.       Curate    of   Carham.       Ordained  Deacon,   20th  Sept. 

1663  and   priest  6th   March,     1664.       Licensed    to    Carham   loth    Oct. 
1663  (Consistory  Court  Visitation  Books). 

Page  76.  Tithehill  was  sold  in   May,    1921,     to    Mr.     WiUiam    Davidson,     of    East 


History  of  Northumberland 



nPHE  district  covered  in  this  volume  consists  of  the  major  part  of 
Glendale.  It  is  a  country  of  varying  nature,  stretching  from  the 
smiling  valley  of  the  Till  on  the  east  to  the  frowning  heights  of  Cheviot 
on  the  west,  the  low-lying  portions  being  a  fertile  agricultural  area,  the 
hills  a  heather  and  marsh  covered  waste,  interspersed  with  the  homesteads 
of  the  shepherds  who  are  its  only  inhabitants.  Round  the  edge  of  the 
Cheviots  flows  the  Bowmont  water,  which,  in  its  lower  reaches,  becomes 
the  river  Glen,  and  at  last  empties  itself  into  the  Till.  This  last  river 
waters  the  eastern  side  of  the  district  on  the  way  to  its  confluence  with 
the  Tweed.  It  is  a  country  varying  in  its  nature  from  romantic  highlands 
to  placid  plain,  and  in  its  history  from  the  almost  unrelieved  dullness  of 
its  inaccessible  moors  to  the  clash  of  arms  in  the  low-lying  districts,  where 
many  a  battle  was  fought,  and  fierce  struggles  centred  round  such  points 
of  vantage  as  the  castles  of  Wark  and  Ford.  In  the  past  it  was  a  border 
district  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  where  life  was  uncertain,  save  in  the 
retired  heights  of  the  hills,  and  where  many  a  struggle,  of  which  no  record 
has  survived,  disturbed  the  lives  of  the  inhabitants.  To-day  it  is  the 
home  of  the  shepherd  and  the  farmer,  who  congregate  from  time  to  time 
in  the  little  town  of  Wooler,  its  market  centre,  when  they  do  not  fare 
further  afield  on  the  single  railway  line,  built  in  1887  between  Alnwick 
and  Coldstream,  their  principal  link  with  the  outer  world. 

Vol.  XI.  I 



The  physical  structure  of  the  district  presents  many  features  of  interest 
to  the  geologist  and  geographer.  The  formations  represented  include  rocks 
of  greater  antiquity  than  any  so  far  described  in  the  previous  volumes  of 
this  history. 

Table  of  Formations. 

{River  Terraces  and  alluvium  _, .  , 

ThicVness  m 
Peat  and  Lake  Deposits  Feet 

Glacial       ...         Boulder  clay,  sand  and  gravel 

{Calcareous  Division  from  the  Oxford  Limestone  to 
the  base  of  the  Dun  Limestone  ...         ...         ...  600 

Carbonaceous  Division  or  Scremerston  Coal  series  550 

Fell  Sandstone  Group  800 

Tuedian  or  Cementstone  series        ...         ...         ...  2,000 

Kelso  Traps. 
Old  Red  Sandstone  ...         Cheviot  Andesite  and  Ash. 

r  Basalt  dykes. 
Intrusive  Rocks.  ...     -j  El  van  and  Porphyrite  dykes. 

'■  Granite. 

To  the  west  of  the  Till  lie  the  lavas  and  granite  of  Old  Red  Sandstone 
age  which  form  the  Cheviot  Hills.  These  rocks  occupy  the  parishes  of  Kirk- 
newton,  West  Wooler  and  the  southern  portions  of  Carham  and  Branxton. 
To  the  north  of  these  come  the  rocks  of  Tate's  'Tuedian'  formation,  which 
stretch  east  as  far  as  the  valley  of  the  Till.  Very  few  exposures,  however, 
occur,  as  the  country  is  deeply  buried  in  drift.  To  the  east  of  the  Till  follow 
higher  beds  of  the  Lower  Carboniferous  series,  the  dip  being  north-east,  so 
that,  after  passing  over  the  Fell  Sandstone  at  Berry-Hill  Crag,  Rhodes  and 
Ford,  we  reach  the  Carbonaceous  division  and  finally  the  base  of  the  Cal- 
careous division  on  Ford  Common.  A  good  deal  of  the  county  is  covered 
with  boulder  clay,  sand,  and  gravel  laid  down  at  the  close  of  the  Glacial 
period.  These  deposits  are  specially  characteristic  of  the  district  between 
Wark  and  Etal,  but  also  occur  scattered  over  the  district  to  the  east  of  the 
Till.  To  the  south  of  Wooler  also  the  Wooler  water  has  cut  down  into  a 
deposit  of  drift  which  reaches  a  thickness  of  over  170  feet. 

Rocks  of  Old  Red  Sandstone  Age.  These  consist  of  granite,  lava  and 
dykes  which,  together,  form  a  compact  '  Petrographical  Province.'  The 
lavas  show  the  general  characters  of  typical  modem  andesite  and  include 
the   three  varieties  mica,   augite  and  hypersthene   andesite.        Formerly, 


the  terms  'porphyrite'  and  'pitchstone  porphyrite'  were  applied  to  these 
I'ocks  on  account  of  the  altered  character  of  their  felspar  crystals.  The 
normal  andesites  are  purple  or  red  in  colour  while  the  pitchstone  por- 
phyrites  are  distinguished  chiefly  by  their  more  compact  and  glassy  character, 
and  the  fact  that  they  are  frequently  black  and  contain  bright  red  bands  and 
veins.  They  are  less  altered  than  the  andesites  and  show  beautiful  flow- 
structure  under  the  microscope.  They  weather  out  into  massive  rounded 
blocks.  Amygdaloidal  bands  frequently  occur,  as  near  Caster  Tor. 
Haematite  often  occurs,  giving  rise  after  weathering  to  a  red  soil.  Ashy  layers 
are  frequently  found  but  cannot  be  mapped  as  definite  horizons.  A  few 
patches  of  true  sedimentary  sandstone  occur  locally,  while  fragments  of 
similar  rocks  are  occasionally  found  included  in  the  lava.  It  has  been  found 
impossible  to  determine  the  order  of  succession  of  the  lava  flows,  but  the 
strike  of  the  beds  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  district  is  in  a  general 
N.N.E.-S.S.W.  direction. 

The  Granite  occupies  about  25  square  miles  of  the  central  portion  of 
the  Cheviot  Hills  and  forms  most  of  the  higher  summits  of  the  range,  in- 
cluding the  Cheviot  (2,676  feet)  and  Cairn  Hill  (2,545  feet),  together  with 
the  summits  forming  the  water  parting  along  Comb  Hill  (2,132  feet),  Hedge- 
hope  (2,348  feet),  and  Middleton  Crags  (1,324  feet). 

The  granite  is  of  special  geological  interest  as  it  is  unique  among  British 
rocks  of  this  class,  and  is  only  met  with  at  a  few  places  abroad,  as  for  example 
at  Laveline  and  Oberbriick  in  the  Vosges. 

It  was  originally  described  by  George  Tate  in  1867  as  a  syenite,  under 
the  impression  that  the  dark  mineral  was  hornblende,  but  in  1885  Sir  Jethro 
Teall  showed  that  the  rock  contained  augite. 

More  recently,  Mr.  Kynaston  has  recorded  the  presence  of  the  mineral 
enstatite  in  several  exposures  of  the  granite,  thus  emphasising  its  close 
connection  with  the  surrounding  andesites.  The  rock  is  fine  grained  and 
somewhat  purple  in  colour  owing  to  the  presence  of  red  felspar  crystals. 
Occasionally  veins  are  found  near  the  margin  of  the  granite  containing 
the  mineral  tourmaline.  The  dykes  include  two  series — one,  consisting 
of  porphyrite,  closely  resembles  the  lavas,  while  the  other,  forming  a  group 
of  elvan  dykes,  is  more  closely  allied  to  the  granite.  Good  examples  of  the 
former  can  be  seen  at  the  summit  of  Yeavering  Bell,  on  the  west  side  of  Hare 
Law,  on  the  north  side  of  the  road  between  Lanton  and  Lanton  Mill,  and 


-J  mile  south-cast  of  Kippie  farm.  Good  examples  of  the  acid  dykes 
occur  near  Southern  Knowe,  Great  Hetha  and  in  the  College  burn,  one-third 
mile  S.S.E.  of  Whitehall,  and  again  about  half  a  mile  east  of  Torleehouse. 
These  dykes  have  a  general  radial  arrangement  with  regard  to  the  granite. 

A  considerable  interval  must  have  elapsed  between  the  outpouring  of  the 
lavas  and  the  intrusion  of  the  granite,  for  Mr.  Kynaston  has  found  that  con- 
siderable alteration  has  been  produced  by  the  granite  close  to  its  contact  with 
the  andesite  up  to  a  distance  of  half  a  mile  from  the  margin  of  the  granite.^ 

From  the  facts  given  above,  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  the  story  of 
this  old  Cheviot  volcano  in  Old  Red  Sandstone  times.  It  would  appear 
tluit  at  the  close  of  the  Silurian  period  the  sea  floor  emerged  as  dry  land 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Scottish  border.  This  movement  was  succeeded 
in  early  Devonian  times  by  an  outburst  of  volcanic  activity  which  resulted 
in  the  piling  up  of  lavas  and  ashes  to  the  height  of  several  thousand  feet. 
The  eruption  appears  to  have  begun  by  the  emission  of  dense  showers  of 
andesite  ash,  mixed  with  fragments  of  Silurian  slate.  These  ashes  accumu- 
lated to  a  thickness  of  at  least  150  feet  and  can  be  seen  at  the  present 
day  near  Makendon.  This  initial  explosion  was  followed  by  the  quiet 
outwelling  of  extensive  lava  flows,  now  exposed  near  Phillip.  Flow  after 
flow  succeeded  with  occasional  showers  of  ash,  until  a  volcanic  pile  of 
considerable  height  must  have  been  built  up.  The  extent  of  ground  originally 
covered  by  these  eruptions  is  unknown,  but  even  now  they  occupy  an  area 
of  230  square  miles  and  the  materials  may  have  proceeded  from  more  than 
one  vent.  What  the  original  thickness  of  these  lavas  and  ashes  may  have 
been  it  is  impossible  to  say,  owing  to  the  extensive  denudation  which  has 
since  taken  place,  but  it  must  have  reached  several  thousand  feet ;  all  we 
know  is  that  the  volcanic  forces  finally  died  away  and  were  succeeded  by  a 
period  of  repose  during  which  water  circulated  through  the  lavas,  dissolv- 
ing some  of  the  mineral  constituents  and  depositing  silica,  calcite  and  iron 
in  the  steam-holes  and  cracks,  giving  rise  to  the  well  known  agates  of  the 
Coquet,  examples  of  which  may  also  be  seen  in  an  exposure  in  a  field  to  the 
south  of  Branxton  Moor. 

The  next  episode  in  the  volcanic  history  of  the  district  was  the  intrusion 
of  the  granite,  which,  as  shown  by  Mr.  Kynaston,  altered  the  andesites 
near  its  margin  and  converted  the  agates  which  filled  the  steam-holes,  into 

'  Trans.  Edin.  Geol.  Soc.  vol.  viii.  1905,  p.  i8. 


clear  quartz,  and  the  calcite  veins  into  a  granular  pyroxene.  The  granite 
in  turn  cooled  and  solidified,  and  a  number  of  fissures  were  produced  in 
the  shrinking  mass  which  radiated  in  all  directions  from  the  margin  of  the 
granite  and  extended  into  the  surrounding  andesites.  Finally,  portions  of 
the  still  molten  rock,  lying  deep  down  below  the  volcano,  rose  into  these 
cracks  to  form  the  series  of  igneous  dykes  which  are  now  found  radiating 
in  all  directions  from  the  margin  of  the  granite.  The  volcanic  district  of  the 
Cheviots  thus  forms  what  is  termed  '  a  petrographical  province '  where  the 
source  of  supply  of  the  lavas,  the  granite  and  dykes  was  the  same,  these 
three  classes  of  rock  being  linked  together  by  their  general  chemical  and 
mineral  composition.  The  variation  in  chemical  composition  between  the 
andesites  and  the  granite  and  between  the  granite  and  the  two  classes  of 
dykes  is  attributed  by  petrologists  to  the  process  known  as  '  differentiation ' 
which  took  place  during  the  intervals  between  the  successive  eruptions  ; 
that  is  to  say,  to  a  process  of  separation  of  the  first  formed  minerals  by  sinking, 
leaving  the  surface  of  the  unconsolidated  rock  more  acid,  or  richer  in  silica. 
On  this  view  the  two  classes  of  dykes  would  be  derived  from  different  layers 
in  the  molten  rock  after  its  differentiation  and  before  its  final  consolidation. 
The  Tiiedian  Group  of  Lower  Carboniferous  rocks  occupies  the  northern 
portion  of  Kirknewton  and  Branxton  parishes  and  appears  to  be  separated 
from  the  Cheviot  lavas  by  a  boundary  fault  which  runs  in  a  general  E.N.E. 
direction  from  the  Scottish  border,  about  three-eighths  of  a  mile  south  of 
Preston  Hill,  to  Hetherslaw,  passing  to  the  south  of  Branxton  Stead  and 
Mardon.  The  beds  are  well  exposed  to  the  north  of  Etal,  in  the  Till  and 
in  the  Tweed  district  between  Carham  and  Coldstream.  They  reappear 
near  Milfield  Hill  and  form  a  narrow  strip  about  2|  miles  long  running  due 
south  to  Kirknewton  and  Old  Yeavering,  whence  they  continue  as  a  narrow- 
fringe  to  the  north  of  the  andesites  to  Wooler,  the  junction  being  again  a 
faulted  one.  On  the  east  of  the  Till  they  crop  out  in  Broomridge  Dean 
and  are  exposed  to  the  south  of  Kimmerston  and  continue  from  here  to 
Fenton  Mill  below  the  Fell  Sandstone.  The  same  beds  also  occur  as  a 
faulted  outlier  in  the  Howtel  valley.  The  oldest  rock  of  the  group  is  the  much 
decomposed  olivine  basalt  known  as  Kelso  Trap,  which  is  well  exposed 
in  the  Tweed  opposite  Carham  Hall,  and  in  the  railway  cutting  near  Shidlaw 
Tile  Works,  and  at  Boulla  Crag.  The  rock  is  a  grey  lava  with  numerous 
amygdaloidal  cavities. 


The  rocks  which  overlie  the  Kelso  Traps  consist  of  thin  bedded  shales, 
sandstones  and  cementstones  and,  near  Carham,  include  a  bed  of  magnesian 
limestone  full  of  chert  nodules  and  containing  44  per  cent,  of  magnesium 
carbonate.  They  were  at  one  time  correlated  with  the  New  Red  Sandstone 
and  tlic  Permian  and  are  so  colouicd  in  Greenough's  map  published  in 
1820,  but  Sedgwick  in  1831  showed  that  their  true  position  was  at  the  base 
of  the  Carboniferous  formation.  In  1856  George  Tate  suggested  the 
name  of  'Tuedian'  for  this  group,  and  the  name  has  been  adopted  by 
the  geological  survey.  The  beds  were  laid  down  in  brackish  water  on  the 
flanks  of  the  Cheviot  volcano,  which  probably  stood  out  as  an  island.  The 
fossils  include  fish,  entomostraca,  lamellibranchs  and  gastropods,  together 
with  the  annelid  Spirorhis  and  plants.  The  numerous  brachiopods  of  the 
truly  marine  beds  elsewhere,  are  almost  entirely  absent.  Owing  to  the 
fresh-water  character  of  these  beds,  it  is  not  easy  to  correlate  them  with 
their  marine  equivalents  elsewhere.  Tate  states  that  they  "form  a  marked 
transitional  series  intercalated  between  the  Mountain  Limestone  and  the 
Old  Red  Sandstone."  In  commenting  on  this  passage  Gunn  remarks  : 
"with  the  exception  of  the  statement  that  these  beds  are  below  the  Mountain 
Limestone  the  above  is  a  good  account."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  beds 
are  older  than  any  rocks  known  as  'Mountain  Limestone'  elsewhere,^  for  the 
beds  which  occur  in  a  similar  position  beneath  the  Fell  Sandstone  in  S.W. 
Northumberland,  North  Cumberland  and  Westmorland  belong  to  the 
Tournaisian  division  of  the  Lower  Carboniferous,  and  represent  Zo  and  C 
of  the  Avon  sequence,  whereas  the  Mountain  Limestone  of  Durham,  York- 
shire and  Derbyshire  belongs  to  the  upper  or  Visean  division.  The  Tuedian 
rocks  must  consequently  also  belong  to  the  Tournaisian  division  and  do 
therefore,  as  Tate  rightly  stated,  lie  below  the  beds  to  which  the  term 
Mountain  Limestone  was  originally  given. 

The  Carham  dolomite  probably  extends  under  the  drift  over  a  fairly 
wide  area  as  numerous  blocks  of  this  rock  are  found  scattered  through  the 
glacial  deposits  as  far  east  as  Moneylaws.  The  '  King's  Stone '  which  stands 
to  the  north  of  the  road,  near  Crookham  Westfield,  consists  of  a  block  of 
this  cherty  dolomite. 

The  Fell  Sandstone  is  well  exposed  near  Tindal  House  and  its  outcrop 
runs  thence  in  a  general  south-easterly  direction.     The  rock  is  a  reddish 

'  F.N.  Sec  E.  J.  Garwood,  Geology  in  the  Field,  part  iv.,  p.  683,  1910. 


thin  coals  and  at  least  one 

friable  sandstone,  often  breaking  down  into  sands  ;  in  places  it  forms  bold 
features  as  at  Berryhill  Crag.  The  beds  can  be  traced  past  Rhodes,  dipping 
i5°-30°  to  the  east,  and  on  to  Ford,  which  is  built  on  the  outcrop  of  these 

The  beds  here  are  much  disturbed  by  faulting  and  are  sometimes  tilted 
into  a  vertical  position.  To  the  south  of  Ford,  the  Fell  sandstone  occupies 
a  much  wider  outcrop  at  the  surface,"  owing  to  the  effect  of  the  Ford-Moss 
fault.  It  forms  conspicuous  crags  to  the  south  of  the  Moss  and  to  the  east 
of  Fenton  Hill,  near  the  border  of  the  parish.  The  greatest  thickness  of 
these  beds  along  their  outcrop  appears  to  be  about  800  feet  near  Tindal 
House.  The  Fell  Sandstone  is  succeeded  to  the  east  of  Rhodes  and  Ford 
by  the  Rocks  of  the  Carbonaceous  division  or  Scremerston  coal  group,  which 
contain  several  workable  seams  of  coal. 

The  following  table  of  these  beds  is  given  by  Mr.  Gunn  : — 

Dun  limestone 

Coal  (Dun  seam)     . . . 

Sandstone  and  shale 

Fawcet  Coal 

Sandstone  and  shale  with 

thin  limestone 
Blackhill  Seam 
Measures     ... 
Kiln  Coal    ... 
Main  Coal 
Measures     ... 
Three-tjuarter  Coal 
Measures     ... 

Lady  Coal  or  Copper  Eye  Coal 
Wester  a  11  Coal 

The  beds  are  much  disturbed  by  faults.  Thus  the  Longheugh  fault, 
which  runs  north-east  past  Etal  colliery,  throws  the  beds  down  about  700 
feet  on  the  south,  shifting  the  outcrop  of  the  Scremerston  coals  a  mile  to  the 
south-west.  The  Stainsfield  fault,  which  runs  due  east  from  Etal  to 
Watchlaw,  again  throws  down  600  feet  to  the  south  and  shifts  the  coals 
still  further  to  the  west.  This  is  compensated  further  south  b}'  a  group 
of  faults  throwing  down  on  the  north  the  most  important  being  the  fault 
which  passes  to  the  south  of  Ford  Moss  and  brings  up  the  Fell  Sandstone 
on  the  south.  Most  of  the  coals  are  moderately  good  bituminous  coals  and 
have  been  worked  for  land  sale,  chiefly  for  lime  burning. 

Ft.  Ins 



I — I 




2 — 2 

























The  Calcareous  division  occurs  only  in  the  north-east  corner  of  Ford 
parish.  The  Dun  and  Woodend  limestones  have  both  been  quarried,  but 
chiefly  the  Woodend.  The  Oxford  Limestone  just  enters  the  parish  near 
Ford  common,  where  it  has  been  much  quarried.  This  limestone  represents 
the  base  of  the  Lonsdalia  beds  of  Westmorland  and  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  it  here  also  contains  the  calcareous  alga  Girvanella  which  invariably 
characterizes  this  horizon  in  Westmorland  and  Yorkshire. 

One  whin  dyke  occurs  traversing  the  Scremerston  coal  group  and  the 
Lower  Limestone  near  Hazley  Hill,  it  forms  the  western  termination  of  the 
long  dyke  which  further  east  is  known  as  the  Bowsden  Dyke. 

The  Superficial  Deposits  consist  of  glacial  drift,  river  gravel  and  lake 
deposits.  The  glacial  deposits  consist  of  boulder  clay,  sands  and  gravels, 
which,  in  places,  occur  as  long  ridges  known  as  Drumlins  and  Kaims. 

The  direction  of  the  glacial  striae  and  the  character  of  the  transported 
boulders  show  that  the  ice  on  the  northern  margin  of  the  Cheviots,  flowed 
eastwards  from  the  Tweed  Valley  at  Coldstream  pressing  against  the  northern 
slopes  of  the  Cheviot  range  and  curving  round  its  north-eastern  margin 
near  Wooler  so  as  to  flow  southwards  along  the  eastern  flank  of  the  Cheviots. 

On  the  high  ground  covering  the  andesite,  the  drift  is  usually  stoney 
and  somewhat  angular  and  contains  rocks  derived  from  beyond  the  border 
on  the  west,  consisting  of  Silurian  grit  and  basalt.  These  foreign  boulders 
are  usually  well  rounded,  but  the  local  andesite  erratics  are  much  less  worn. 

The  boulder  clay  is  widely  distributed  and  sometimes  fills  hollows  to 
a  depth  of  loo  feet.  It  is  usually  red,  though  blue  clay  is  also  found. 
The  drumlins  consist  of  ridges  of  boulder  clay  having  their  longer  axis  directed 
between  N.E.  and  E.N.E.  At  Blake  Lane  a  drumlin  rises  to  a  height  of 
over  100  feet  above  the  general  surface  of  the  country.  These  drumlins 
appear  to  be  parallel  with  the  direction  of  movement  of  the  glacier. 

Among  the  gravel  ridges  the  most  notable  is  the  Kaim  at  Wark.  This 
was  described  in  1866  by  the  Rev.  P.  Mearns,  and  more  recently  by 
Mr.  Gunn.  It  forms  an  elongated  mound  running  nearly  E.-W.  ;  it  is  1,400 
yards  long  and  from  70  to  250  feet  wide,  having  its  greatest  width  where 
the  Castle  stands,  while  its  height  is  over  30  feet.  It  is  composed  of  coarse 
well-rounded  gravel  enclosing  patches  of  sand  and  clay  and  contains  boulders 
of  local  rocks,  including  Carham  limestone,  basalt  and  andesite,  several  of 
the  boulders  are  over  2  feet  in  diameter. 


Immediately  to  the  west  of  Carham  there  occurs  a  bed  of  clay  resting 
on  gravel.  This  has  yielded  numerous  bones  of  water  rats  and  frogs  and  was 
considered  by  Professor  James  Geikie  to  be  of  interglacial  age. 

The  actual  thickness  of  the  ice  is  unknown,  but  '  foreign '  drift  occurs 
up  to  a  height  of  1,000  feet  on  Brand's  Hill;  above  this  the  Cheviot  range 
must  have  been  covered  by  its  own  ice  cap. 

Messrs.  Clough,  Kendal  and  Muff  have  described  certain  'dry'  valleys 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Yeavering  Bell,  Black  Law  and  Harehope  Hill, 
which  appear  to  be  relics  of  overflow  channels  from  a  chain  of  small  glacial 
lakes,  the  waters  of  which  were  held  up  by  the  edge  of  the  Tweed  glacier, 
to  the  north.  These  overflow  channels  cut  across  the  spurs  which  radiate 
from  the  Cheviots  and  are  well  seen  behind  Yeavering  Bell  near  the  900  feet 
contour,  on  Akeld  Hill  at  about  the  same  level,  and  the  spur  of  Black  Law 
and  Harehope  Hill.  Humbleton  Hill  again  is  cut  off  by  a  gigantic  rock  gully, 
now  quite  dry. 

The  tract  of  nearly  level  ground  known  as  Milfield  Plain  forms  one  of 
the  most  striking  features  in  the  scenery  of  the  district.  It  covers  about 
12  square  miles,  and  its  surface  is  entirely  composed  of  superficial  accumu- 
lations of  clay,  sand  and  gravel.  It  appears  to  occupy  the  site  of  a  large  lake 
which  came  into  existence  towards  the  close  of  the  glacial  period. 

These  lake  deposits  consist  of  a  thick  layer  of  clay,  overlain  by  gravel 
and  alluvium.  The  clay  was  evidently  washed  out  of  the  surrounding  boulder 
clay  by  streams  flowing  from  the  margin  of  the  ice  as  it  melted  back  at  the 
close  of  the  glacial  period.  This  clay  at  Flodden  Tile  Works  was  penetrated 
to  a  depth  of  40  feet,  while  near  Humbleton  Buildings  a  boring  passed  through 
100  feet  of  clay  without  reaching  the  bottom.  The  overlying  sands  and 
gravel  are  50  feet  thick,  so  that  the  floor  of  the  lake  must  lie  in  places  below 
sea  level. 

This  ancient  sheet  of  water,  called  'Lake  Ewart '  by  Mr.  E.  G.  Butler, 
evidently  owed  its  origin  to  an  obstruction  near  Crookham.  Before  the 
glacial  period  the  Till  probably  flowed  westwards  from  Crookham,  passing 
between  Branxton  Building  and  Pallinsburn  Dairy  Farm,  and  joined  the 
Tweed  near  Cornhill.  This  post-glacial  diversion  of  the  Till  is  indicated  by 
(i)  The  nearly  level  surface  of  Milfield  Plain,  (2)  the  lacustine  character  of 
the  deposits,  (3)  the  sudden  change  in  the  character  of  the  Till  valley  at 
Etal,  (4)  the  significant  loops  which  occur  both  in  the  Till  and  the  Tweed, 

Vol.  XI.  2 

10  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

at  Crookliam  and  Cornhill  respectively,  at  either  end  of  tlie  line  along  which 
the  prc-glacial  valley  of  the  Till  is  assumed  to  lie. 

The  average  height  of  Milfield  Plain  is  about  150  feet,  but  old  beaches 
occur  at  a  height  of  185  feet  near  Lanton  and  Sandyhouse,  and  Mr.  Butler 
assumes  a  height  of  at  least  200  feet  for  the  surface  of  the  water  of  the  lake. 
This  would  indicate  an  extension  of  the  lake  southwards  to  New  Berwick 
and  northwards  from  Fowberry  Tower  to  Hetton  Hall. 

The  character  and  position  of  the  obstruction  which  blocked  the  Till 
drainage  near  Crookham  and  brought  Lake  Ewart  into  existence  is  not 
altogether  clear  at  the  present  day.  The  old  valley  between  Crookham  and 
Cornhill  is  now,  presumably,  filled  with  glacial  deposits,  but  during  its 
retreat,  the  Tweed  glacier  may,  for  a  time,  have  still  covered  the  district 
to  the  north  and  west  of  Etal,  and  the  overflow  would  then  have  been  to 
the  N.E.  past  Greenlaw  Walls  (217  feet)  into  Haiden  Dean,  which,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Butler,  was  excavated  at  this  period.  Anyhow,  as  the  ice  melted 
back  into  the  Tweed  valley,  the  overflow  from  the  lake  eventually  found 
a  lower  exit  along  its  present  course.  The  meanders  of  the  Till  between 
Tindal  House  and  the  Tweed  show  that  it  must  at  first  have  trickled  over 
glacial  drift  into  which  it  gradually  cut  down  its  valley  to  the  Carboniferous 
rocks,  on  the  surface  of  which  it  now  flows,  for  there  is  now  no  relation 
between  the  ri\-er  windings  and  the  strike  of  the  Carboniferous  rocks.  The 
sudden  bend  to  the  west  between  Ford  and  Etal,  would  seem  to  support  the 
view  that  the  Till  is  re-excavating  its  old  valley  at  this  point,  while  the 
presence  of  a  similar  loop  in  the  Tweed,  near  Cornhill,  facing  to  the  east, 
suggests  that  the  Tweed  is  also  re-excavating  the  old  valley  at  its  western 
end.  Another  lake  occupied  the  Glen  valley,  at  one  period,  at  a  higher 
level  as  shown  by  deposits  in  the  Bowmont  Water  occurring  up  to  a  height  of 
300  feet.  The  water  from  this  lake  must  have  found  its  way  at  one  time 
past  Coupland  Castle  through  the  depression  to  the  west  of  Galewood  and 
have  entered  Lake  Ewart  somewhere  to  the  north  of  Thirlings.  Other 
alterations  in  the  drainage  of  the  district  have  probably  taken  place  since 
pre-glacial  times.  This  is  suggested  by  the  presence  of  overflow  channels 
between  Yeavering  Bell  and  Humbleton,  already  mentioned,  while  it  is 
possible  that  the  Bowmont  Water  may  have  at  one  time  flowed  due  north 
from  Downham  to  Cornhill,  approximately  along  the  line  of  the  present 
railway.     This  would  appear  to  be  indicated  by  the  general  direction  of 


the  Bowmont  Water  in  its  upper  reaches  to  the  south  of  Shotton  and  Knill 
Yetholm,  the  sudden  bend  to  the  east  between  Downham  and  Paston 
being  strongly  suggestive  of  a  recent,  possibly  post-glacial,  diversion. 

The  recent  deposits  include  alluvium,  river  gravels  and  old  lake  deposits. 
Several  gravel  terraces  occur  along  the  banks  of  the  Tweed  ;  one  of  these, 
at  Carham,  stands  40  feet  above  the  river.  The  old  lakes  are  usually  filled 
with  peat,  which  frequently  rests  on  a  deposit  of  shell  marl.  Examples 
are  seen  at  Strother  Bog,  Moneylaws,  the  Hag  and  Ford  ]\Ioss.  The  shell 
marl  has  been  dug  for  manure  since  the  beginning  of  the  19th  century  at 
Wark,  Sunnyglass,  East  Learmouth,  Mindrum  and  elsewhere,  in  addition 
to  fresh  water  shells  and  nuts,  the  remains  of  ox  and  stag  have  occasionally 
been  met  with. 

12  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 


Ecclesiastical  History.  Though  many  authorities  have  considered 
that  after  the  Reformation  Carham  was  no  more  than  a  chapelry  of  the 
parish  of  Kirknewton,  there  is  no  doubt  that  originally  these  were  two  quite 
distinct  parishes. ^  Further  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  Mindrum  and  Down- 
ham  were  originally  in  Kirknewton,  and  though  severed  from  that  parish, 
were  never  formally  attached  to  Carham  till  after  the  Reformation.^  The 
early  history  of  the  church  of  Carham  is  somewhat  confused,  since  there 
seem  to  have  been  two  rival  claimants  for  its  possession.  In  the  first  of 
his  two  charters  granting  lands  and  possession  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham, 
Walter  Espec  included  the  'church  of  Carham  on  the  river  Tweed  with  all 
pertaining  thereto',^  and  this  charter  by  its  allusion  to  the  already  existing 
abbey  of  Rievaulx,*  betrays  that  it  was  not  drawn  before  1131,  the  earliest 
date  given  for  the  foundation  of  that  monastery.^  On  the  other  hand, 
Matilda,  wife  of  King  Henry  I.,  who  died  in  1118,  had  given  'the  church  of 
Carham  and  whatever  pertains  thereto,'  to  the  monks  of  St.  Cuthbert.^  By 
wliat  right  Queen  Matilda  claimed  to  dispose  of  the  church  we  cannot  tell, 
but  the  Durham  monks  would  naturally  make  the  most  of  their  very  question- 
able title,  and  the  statement  that  the  whole  vill  of  Carham  had  been  granted 
to  them  in  the  seventh  century,  which  appears  in  the  life  of  St.  Cuthbert, 
written  by  one  of  their  number  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  twelfth  century, '^ 
is  no  doubt  an  attempt  to  substantiate  it.  The  authenticity  of  the  charter 
which  they  held  cannot  very  well  be  doubted  in  view  of  the  dedication  of  the 
church  of  Carham  to  St.  Cuthbert,^  but  the  title  of  the  grantee  was  so  far 
as  we  know  impossible  to  substantiate.  At  any  rate,  Henry  L  did  not 
attempt  to  do  so  since  he  confirmed  the  grant  to  Kirkham,^  and  matters  were 
made  still  more  definite  in  a  second  charter  of  Walter  Espec,  wherein  his  original 

'  Carham  is  constantly  referred  to  as  'matrix  ccclcsia'  in  the  Kirkham  Cartulary.  -  See  page  15. 

'  Rievaulx  Chartulary,  p.  161.  *  Ibid.  p.  160.  '  Ibid.  Introduction,  pp.  xl.-xli. 

'  Durham  Treasury  Document — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  150;  Kaine,  North  Durham,  .Xpp.  No.  dcclxxxv. 
p.  141.  The  fact  that  Ranulph,  bishop  of  Durham,  is  mentioned  proves  that  the  document  must  be  ascribed 
to  tliis  Matilda,  and  not  to  her  daughter. 

'  Life  of  St.  Cuthbert  in  Symeonis  Monachi  Opera  Omnia  (Rolls  Series,  No.  75),  vol.  i.  p.  200.  For  further 
discussion  of  this  see  pp.  25-26. 

'  On  this  point  see  p.  20,  n.  5. 

•  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  pp.  360-361.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  only  the  church  and  not  the  vill  is 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  confirmation,  which  suggests  that  that  was  a  matter  of  importance,  possibly  a 
matter  of  dispute,  at  the  time. 


gift  was  reaffirmed.^  Henry  II.  again  confirmed  the  title  of  Kirkham,^  but  the 
claims  of  Durham  do  not  seem  to  have  been  formally  renounced  till  1253.^ 
At  some  time,  probably  soon  after  the  original  gift,  a  ceU  of  Kirkham 
was  established  at  Carham,  the  first  indication  of  which  is  an  allusion  of  1279 
to  the  master  of  Carham,*  but  the  inmates  can  never  have  been  numerous, 
indeed  just  before  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  Leland  reports  that  it 
was  a  cell  of  two  canons  only.^  It  was  doubtless  only  established  as  a  sort 
of  agency  for  the  Kirkham  property  in  the  diocese  of  Durham,^  and  there  can 
have  been  few  attractions  for  those  who  lived  there.  Indeed  in  1308  a  de- 
faulting canon  of  Kirkham,  who  had  concealed  the  fact  that  he  possessed 
fourteen  marks,  was  condemned  by  the  archbishop  of  York  at  his  visitation 
of  the  monastery  to  exile  at  Carham  till  such  time  as  his  fault  had  been 
expiated.'^  It  is  natural  therefore  that  we  should  know  little  of  the  inmates 
of  this  cell,  indeed  only  on  three  occasions  are  we  told  the  name  of  the  master. 
In  1293  one  Robert  Chambard  held  this  office,^  while  in  1359  one  of  his  suc- 
cessors, William  of  Thoraldby  by  name,  having  taken  an  appeal  to  Rome 
on  some  matter  concerned  with  the  cell,  agreed  to  resign  his  position  on  being 
provided  to  the  vicarage  of  Newark.^  In  1432  Richard  Colyn,  master  of 
Carham,  on  being  brought  before  the  bishop  of  Durham,  confessed  that  he 
had  misconducted  himself  with  a  Scotswoman,  and  submitted  to  penance.^" 
A  few  criminals  must  have  found  their  way  to  the  little  monastery,  for  it  seems 
to  have  had  the  right  of  sanctuary,  as  on  two  separate  occasions  in  an 
assize  roll  of  1256  is  there  mention  of  the  flight  of  a  malefactor  'to  the  peace 
of  Carham. '^1  Occasionally  the  house  appears  as  the  recipient  of  some  gift 
or  as  the  assertor  of  some  right.     Thus  Robert  Roos — which  of  the  various 

1  Rievaulx  Chartiilary,  p.  244.     The  date  of  this  document  must  be  before  1140. 

'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  pp.  361-362. 

'  The  prior  of  Durham  then  confirmed  a  confirmation  of  the  church  of  Carham  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham 
made  by  the  bishop  of  Durham.  Durham  Treasury,  Miscellaneous  Charters,  No.  6,659.  Of.  Hunter,  MS.  3, 
p.  245  ;  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  150-151. 

*  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  330.  '  Leland's  Itinerary,  vol.  v.  p.  67. 

»  This  supposition  is  strengthened  by  the  inclusion  in  the  Kirkham  Cartulary  under  the  heading  'Car- 
ham' of  a  memorandum  of  an  assessment  of  all  the  lands  belonging  to  the  Priory  in  the  Diocese  of  Durham 
for  the  purposes  of  a  tenth  granted  to  the  Pope  for  a  crusade.  The  full  value  was  given  at  /219  4s.  6Jd. 
Kirkham  Cartulary,  fols.  75-76. 

'  Reg.  Greenfield,  pt.  i.  fol.  logdo — Memorials  of  Hexham,  vol.  i.  pp.  xl.-xli. 

'  Assize  Rolls,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  112. 

^  Cal.  of  Papal  Petitions,  vol.  i.  p.  337;    Cal.  of  Papal  Letters,  vol.  iii.  p.  604.      Randal,  p.  21,  gives 
the  name  of  Robert  of  Aberford,  1367,  among  the  'curates  of  Carham.' 

"•  Reg.  Langley,  p.  192,  copied  in  Hunter  MS.  3,  p.  245. 

"  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  pp.  115,  117. 

14  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

owners  of  that  name  is  not  certain — gave  to  Our  Lady,  St.  Cuthbert,  and  the 
church  at  Carham  one  pound  of  wax  to  be  used  in  the  form  of  two  candles 
to  be  burnt  at  the  Feast  of  St.  Cuthbert  in  September  and  two  at  the  Depo- 
sition of  St.  Cuthbert  in  March. ^  On  another  occasion,  Patrick,  earl  of 
Dunbar — but  again  which  of  these  earls  is  not  certain — gave  the  canons 
permission  to  make  a  pool  between  Netherford  and  Langeford  on  the  Tweed, 
on  the  condition  that  half  the  fish  taken  therefrom  should  be  given  to  him, 
a  gift  which  later  led  to  litigation  when  the  canons  complained  that  the  earl 
had  destroyed  one  of  their  pools,  and  had  diverted  the  river  so  as  to  make 
a  new  one  for  himself,  thereby  altering  the  centre  of  the  stream,  which  was 
the  boundary  between  his  property  and  that  of  his  neighbours. ^  At  an 
earlier  date  controversy  had  arisen  between  Robert,  son  of  Orm,  a  Presson 
landowner,  and  the  canons  over  the  wheaten  flour  used  in  the  bread  for  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  due  from  Learmouth  and  Moneylaws,  but  this  was 
amicably  settled.^  It  may  be  that  Sir  John  Coupland  was  a  benefactor  of 
the  cell,  at  least  he  lay  buried  in  the  church  for  a  time,  though  in  1366,  about 
five  years  after  his  death,  his  widow  received  licence  to  exhume  his  body 
and  have  it  transferred  to  Kirkham  priory.^  He  cannot  have  held  the 
patronage  of  the  cell  even  under  any  lease  of  the  barony  which  he  may  have 
possessed,  for  when  in  1317  William  Roos  surrendered  the  barony  to  the 
crown,  he  expressly  reserved  to  himself  the  advowson  of  the  cells  per- 
taining to  the  priory  of  Kirkham  and  the  hospital  of  Bolton.^ 

The  establishment  of  a  cell  at  Carham  resulted  in  the  omission  of  any 
ordination  of  the  vicarage,  but  a  portion  was  set  aside  for  the  master.  In 
Pope  Nicholas's  taxation  of  1291,  the  value  of  the  church  was  returned  at 
£63,^  while  the  master's  property  was  assessed  at  £13.  '^  This  same  valuation 
for  the  church  recurs  in  1306  and  in  1340 — in  the  first  case  '  the  rectory  of 
Carham'  being  the  term  used^— and  for  the  master  in  1308  and  1313.^  In- 
cluded in  this  value  was  an  annual  contribution  of  105s.  4d.,  which  the  first 

'  Kirkham  Chartulary,  fol.  76.  -  Ibid.  fol.  75. 

'  Ibid.  i.  82.  The  words  are  'Idem  remisit  dictis  canonicis  querelam  quam  moverat  adversus  eos  de 
pane  dominico  et  benedicto  dc  leverraue  et  monilaue  portando  ad  matricem  ecclesiam.'  It  is  possible 
that  this  may  mean  bread  of  the  best  quality  for  use  as  pain  beni,  or  pain  b6ni  from  the  demesne,  but  the 
eucharistic  bread  is  probably  meant. 

*  Reg.  Hatfield,  fol.  109.  s  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1313-1318,  pp.  569-570. 

'  Taxatio  Eccles.  Angliae,  1291 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  351.  '  Ibid.  p.  354. 

'  Reg.  Palat.  Duneltn.  vol.  iii.  p.  97 ;  Noiiarum  Inqtiisiliones — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  xxxviii. 

"  Compotus  of  the  15th,  1308 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  ii  ;  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm.  vol.  i.  p.  499, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  960,  963. 


Robert  Roos  had  bound  himself  and  his  heirs  to  pay  by  way  of  commutation 
for  the  tenth  penny  of  the  income  of  all  the  lands  and  mills  which  he  had 
inherited  from  Walter  Espec/  a  sum  which  the  king  expressly  preserved  to 
the  canons  when  the  barony  of  Roos  was  forfeited  in  1296. ^ 

Besides  the  parish  church  of  Carham  there  were  during  the  middle  ages 
at  least  two  other  chapels  in  the  parish  not  counting  the  possibly  temporary 
private  oratory  allowed  to  Orm  at  Presson.^  So  far  as  the  one  at  Mindrum 
is  concerned  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  originally  Mindrum  and  Down- 
ham  were  in  the  parish  of  Kirknewton.  At  any  rate  in  the  second  half  of 
the  twelfth  century,  after  long  dispute,  agreement  was  come  to  between 
the  parson  of  Kirknewton  and  the  priory  of  Kirkham,  whereby  the  former 
resigned  all  his  right  and  the  right  of  his  church  in  the  chapel  of  Mindrum, 
and  Hugh  Puiset,  bishop  of  Durham,  confirmed  to  the  latter  the  chapel 
with  all  the  tithes  and  parish  dues  of  the  vills  of  Mindrum  and  Downham. 
At  the  same  time  the  prior  resigned  all  claim  to  the  church  of  Newton,  and 
was  allowed  to  decide  where  the  dead  of  the  two  vills  should  be  buried,  since 
hitherto  they  had  been  taken  to  Kirknewton.*  It  is  obvious  from  this 
document  that  Mindrum  chapel  was  no  private  oratory  but  a  chapel  of  ease, 
indeed  it  had  its  own  little  endowment  of  four  acres  of  land  in  Edred  furlong 
in  Downham  granted  to  it  by  Adam  son  of  Gillimichael,^  besides  the  tithes 
of  the  two  townships  thus  confirmed  to  it.  Now  by  the  association  of  Kirk- 
ham priory  with  the  chapel  a  connection  with  Carham  was  established. 
Mindrum  chapel  was  doubtless  for  the  rest  of  the  middle  ages  extra-parochial, 
and  it  seems  to  have  enjoyed  the  right  of  sanctuary  associated  with  Carham, 
since  in  1293  William,  son  of  Eustace  of  Middleton  Hall,  having  committed 
burglary  at  Coldmarton,  took  sanctuary  in  '  the  church  of  Mindrum,'  and  was 
allowed  to  abjure  the  realm.®  The  solution  of  the  cemetery  problem  seems 
to  have  been  to  establish  a  new  one  at  Mindrum.  To-day  on  the  northern 
side  of  the  road  which  runs  from  Mindrum  homestead  to  Mindrum  mill, 
there  lies  a  disused  cemetery,  which  certainly  has  no  relics  of  the  medieval 
period,  indeed  but  for  one  or  two  half-covered  gravestones  to  denote  its  former 
purpose  it  might  be  merely  an  enclosed  field,  but  it  may  mark  the  site  of  a 
graveyard  of  ancient  days.      Doubtless  at  the  Reformation  the  chapel  was 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84.  2  (^^Z.  of  Close  Rolls,  1288-1296,  p.  518. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  82.     Cf.  page  92.  '  Dodsworth  MS.  7,  fol.  210. 

*  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

*  The  place  is  spelt  'Middrom.'     Assize  Rolls,  21  Edw.  I — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  67. 

l6  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

allowed  to  fall  into  decay,  and  the  district  would  naturally  be  associated 
with  the  church  at  Carham  since  both  had  belonged  to  the  dissolved  monas- 
tery of  Kirkham.  Only  the  graveyard  would  remain,  last  relic  of  Mindrum's 
ecclesiastical  independence.^ 

At  Wark  too  there  was  a  chapel  from  quite  early  days,  where,  by  agree- 
ment between  the  priory  of  Kirkham  and  Robert  Roos,  permission  was  given 
for  the  holding  of  daily  services  including  Matins,  Vespers,  all  the  Hours 
and  Mass,  save  on  the  feasts  of  the  Purification,  and  the  Deposition  of  St. 
Cuthbert  in  March  and  on  Easter  Day,  when  the  inhabitants  of  Wark  were 
to  attend  the  parish  church.  In  return  for  this  Robert  Roos  provided  an 
endowment  of  two  bovates  of  land  in  Wark  on  the  banks  of  the  Tweed,  while 
the  men  of  the  township  promised  an  annual  payment  of  6s.  8d.  and  undertook 
to  provide  the  necessary  furniture  including  a  chalice,  books,  vestments 
and  lights.-  The  site  of  this  chapel  is  probabl}^  to-day  marked  by  the  little 
disused  graveyard,  lying  at  the  western  extremity  of  the  kaim  on  the  eastern 
end  of  which  Wark  Castle  was  built,  and  in  1828  described  by  Archdeacon 
Singleton  as  '  the  burial  ground  at  Gilly's  Nick,  I  suppose  St.  Giles. '^  Accord- 
ing to  the  ministers'  accounts  dealing  with  the  property  of  Kirkham  priory 
just  after  the  Dissolution,  the  glebe  lands,  meadows  and  pastures  within  the 
township  of  Carham  'and  also  the  half  moiety  of  Learmouth'  in  monastic 
days  'had  been  reserved  for  the  stipends  of  three  curates  within  three 
chapels  at  Carham,  Wark  and  Mindrum'.^ 

The  cell  at  Carham  naturally  shared  the  fate  of  Kirkham  priory  at  the 
Dissolution.  In  May  1439,  we  find  the  last  reference  to  a  master  of  Carham,^ 
and  its  property  was  undoubtedly  in  the  king's  hands  before  the  close  of  that 
year.^  The  buildings  were  probably  pulled  down  at  once  to  provide  materials 
for  the  repair  of  Wark  Castle,  at  least  that  seems  to  be  the  only  deduction  from 
a  reference  in  1542  to  workmen  carting  stone  from  Carham  church  to  the 
castle.'     Not  a  stone  of  them  survives  to-day,  but  there  are  sufficient  signs 

'  The  oldest  gravestone  readable  in  1889  was  to  the  memory  of  George  Tait,  who  died  4th  October,  1675. 
Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol,  xiii.  p.  67.  For  a  full  description  of  the  graveyard  as  it  was  recently,  with  tran- 
scriptions of  the  inscriptions  then  legible,  see  paper  by  the  Rev.  M.  CuUey  in  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club, 
vol.  xxii.  pp.  191-196. 

-  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

'  Archdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255. 

*  Ministers'  Accounts,  31  Hen.  VIII.  in  Caley  MS. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  i.  p.  462. 

'  Ministers'  Accounts,  31  Hen.  VIII. — Monasticon,  vol.  vi.  pt.  i.  p.  210. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  xvii.  p.  555. 


to  shew  that  they  lay  west  of  the  church. ^  The  endowments  were  kept 
in  royal  hands  for  some  years  and  leased  to  various  persons-  much  in 
the  same  way  as  the  tithes  had  been  leased  before  the  Dissolution.  Thus 
in  March,  1540,  the  tithes  of  Carham  and  Wark,  parcel  of  Carham  rectory, 
were  leased  for  21  years  to  Thomas  Blackett,^  and  other  lessees  of  tithes 
in  various  parts  of  the  parish  from  time  to  time  were  J.  Denton,  Cuthbert 
Rowland,  Thomas  Clark,  and  Sir  Henry  Percy.*  In  1565  Carham  parsonage, 
as  it  is  described,  was  in  the  occupation  of  Luke  Ogle,  John  Carr  of  Ford, 
and  the  latter's  neighbour,  Collingwood  the  Constable  of  Etal.  A  certain 
Thomas  Clark  of  Wark  had  secured  a  lease  thereof  in  reversion,  whereat 
great  protests  were  raised  by  the  three  existing  lessees,  and  both  the  earl 
of  Bedford  and  Sir  John  Forster  were  induced  to  send  protests  to  London 
on  the  ground  that  these  men  of  approved  honesty  and  'service'  would 
thereby  'be  put  from  a  great  part  of  their  living.'^  These  protests  seem  to 
have  been  unavailing,  for  in  the  very  next  year  Thomas  Clark  is  found  in 
possession  of  a  lease  of  the  rectory  for  twenty-one  years  dated  1564,  and 
not  content  with  this  the  crown  granted  the  reversion  at  the  end  of  this  period 
to  Rowland  Forster,^  the  incompetent  captain  of  Wark,  brother  of  Sir  John 
Forster,  who  had  protested  the  year  before.  At  last  in  1579  the  crown 
divested  itself  of  the  property  by  granting  it  to  the  queen's  favourite.  Sir 
Christopher  Hatton,  describing  it  as  'the  rectory  and  church  of  Carham,' 
and  the  tithes  of  grain  and  hay  of  Carham  and  Wark,  the  glebe  land  and  all 
the  tithes  called  altarage  tithes  in  Carham,  the  tithes  of  grain  of  Mindrum 
and  Presson  and  a  moiety  of  the  tithes  of  wool  and  lamb  in  Learmouth 
which  had  been  lately  reserved  for  three  chaplains  in  the  chapels  of  Carham, 
Mindrum  and  Wark,  together  with  the  tithes  of  wool  and  lamb  in  Presson, 
Mindrum,  Moneylaws,  Downham,  and  the  moiety  of  the  town  of  Learmouth 
which  was  parcel  of  the  rectory  of  Ilderton.  The  charges  thereon  were  a  fee 
farm  rent  of  £11  los.  od.  and  £7  towards  the  support  of  the  said  three 

1  Wallis,  Norlhiimberland,  vul.  ii.  p.  468,  describes  the  monastery  as  situated  to  the  east  of  the  church. 
He  is  followed  as  usual  by  Mackenzie,  but  more  strangely  also  by  Mr.  TomUnson  in  his  Guide  to  North- 

'  In  1533  the  tithes  of  Mindrum,  Moneylavves  and  Presson  were  leased  to  Odney  Selby,  and  in  1536 
the  tithes  of  Jloneylawes  and  Presson  to  Henry  Collingwood.  Augmentation  Office,  Conventual  Leases,  York, 
Bundle  426. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII,  vol.  .xv.  p.  565. 

»  P.R.O.  Augmentation  Office,  Particulars  of  Leases,  Northumberland,  File  2,  No.  36,  File  3,  Nos.  i,  3, 
File  4,  No.  I,  File  7,  No.  10. 

*  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1547-1565,  pp.  562-563. 

'  Augmentation  Office,  Particulars  for  Leases — Caley  MS. 
Vol.   XI.  3 

1 8  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

chaplains.    All  this  was  at  once  reconveyed  to  Thomas  Forster  of  Adder- 
stone,^  and  the  later  descent  of  the  rectory  lands  is  traced  below.- 

Practically  the  whole  of  the  parish  endowment  had  been  secularized, 
even  including  the  glebe,  a  consequence  of  a  vicarage  never  having  been 
ordained.  Certain  sums  had  been  set  apart  for  the  payment  of  chaplains, 
and  the  terms  of  Thomas  Forster's  will  of  1589  show  that  some  such  charges 
continued  after  the  Dissolution,^  but  they  doubtless  did  not  exceed  the  £7 
noticed  in  the  Ministers'  Accounts  of  1540  and  in  the  grant  to  Sir  Christopher 
Hatton.  Thus  Carliam  figures  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  as  'lacking  an 
incumbent  and  as  being  served  b}-  a  stipendiary  priest,''*  who  in  1578  was  one 
Richard  Lee,  so  sick  and  infirm  that  he  was  excused  the  task  of  giving  an 
account  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  at  the  chancellor's  visitation  that  year.^ 
There  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  the  incumbent  of  Carham  received  more 
than  the  £7,  which  undoubtedly  was  his  salary  in  the  seventeenth  century,^ 
as  the  ecclesiastical  survey  of  1650  described  the  parish  as  a  rectory,  wliereof 
Mr.  Forster  of  Adderstone  was  the  patron  and  Mr.  Marke  Murrow  the 
incumbent,  '  who  hath  for  his  salary  yearly  paid  him  by  the  patron  twentye 
pounds,  the  Rectory  it  selfe  being  of  the  yearely  value  of  two  hundred  and 
fortj'e  pounds.'^  The  chapels  of  Mindrum  and  Wark  had  evidently  dis- 
appeared, so  the  £7  was  entirely  devoted  to  Carham,  though  a  new  chapel 
had  sprung  up  since  the  Reformation  at  Learmouth,  served  doubtless  by  the 
incumbent  of  Carham,  and  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  Inquest  of  1650 
'  being  situate  in  the  midle  of  the  said  parish  is  litt  to  be  made  the  Pariccheiall 
church.'*  Learmouth  was  as  much  to  the  extreme  east  of  the  parish  as  Car- 
ham was  to  the  extreme  west,  and  the  recommendation  was  not  acted  on. 
After  the  Restoration  the  rectory  was  returned  as  of  the  value  of  £300, 
Mr.  Forster  being  the  impropriator  just  as  before,  but  the  incumbent's  stipend 
had  dropped  to  £6  13s.  4d.  a  year,^  which  may  mean  that  £"]  was  the  normal 
salary  but  that  Colonel  Forster,  as  a  royalist,  had  been  compelled  to  add 
to  the  puritan  incumbent's   emoluments  during  the  Commonwealth,  even 

'  Carham  Deeds.  -  See  pp.  26-27.  '  ll'ills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  pp.  165-166. 

'  Barnes,  Injunctions,  &-c.,  p.  10.  '  Ibid.  pp.  40,  Tz-'jS. 

'  'Salarie  of  the  curete  of  Charham  by  the  yeare  ly.'     June  2nd,  1652.     Augmentation  Office,  Salaries 
of  Curates  and  Schoolmasters — Caley,  MS. 

'  Ecclesiastical  Survey,  1650 — Arcli>.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  iii.  p.  5.  »  Ibid. 

'Survey   of   the  churches  of   Northumberland  .\rchdeaconry,    1663 — Arch.   Aeliana,    N.S.   vol.   xvii. 
P-  255.  • 


as  his  neighbour  at  Ford  had  been  obhged  to  do.^  Colonel  Forster's  son, 
Thomas,  came  into  conflict  with  the  incumbent,  'the  Rev.  Mr.  Ogle,'  in  the 
early  eighteenth  century,  when  the  living  was  described  as  'a  curacy  or  a 
donative  in  the  gift  of  Mr.  Forster  of  Adderstone.'  After  his  first  year's 
incumbency.  Ogle  '  could  get  nothing  of  his  patron  for  supplying  the  cure,' 
and  after  long  litigation  his  resources  proved  insufficient  to  carry  on  the 
struggle,  'which  hard  and  unjust  usage  together  with  the  concern  for  a 
starving  and  numerous  family  for  some  time  disordered  his  head.'  ^  The  fact 
that  the  patron  had  conveyed  the  tithes  to  his  son  Thomas, ^  in  order  to  non- 
suit the  parson  as  the  latter's  friends  said,^  caused  them  to  be  forfeited  to 
the  crown,  and  they  were  rented  with  the  rest  of  the  rebel  general's  estate  to 
William  Stoddart,*  'a  dissenting  teacher  at  South  Shields.'  Ogle  seems  to 
have  been  given  licence  to  take  possession  of  the  small  tithes,  but  the  new 
owner  withheld  '  two  or  three  parcels  of  the  glebe  and  the  small  tyths  of  one 
or  two  townships  from  the  curate,  who  has  been  so  long  in  the  Law  and  so 
great  a  sufferer  by  it,  that  he  is  not  able  to  recover  his  right.'  The  result 
to  the  stipend  of  the  benefice  was  that  whereas  Thomas  Forster  had  only 
allowed  the  curate  ^^30  a  \'ear,  now  with  the  addition  of  the  tithes  it  had 
risen  to  /70  a  vear.-^ 

During  most  of  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  incumbent 
of  Carham  was  Richard  Wallis,  presented  in  1748,  and  still  living 
as  an  old  man  of  75  in  1791,  having  shown  an  interest  outside  his  parish 
by  ministering  to  a  congregation  of  the  Episcopalian  Church  of  Scotland  at 
Kelso  over  the  border,  in  whose  interests  he  raised  a  fund  of  ;^i86  from  his 
friends  for  the  building  of  a  chapel.^  z\rchdeacon  Singleton  in  his  visitation 
of  1828  found  the  patronage  '  in  the  Compton  family,  the  impropriation 
belonging  to  the  elder  brother,  whilst  a  junior  has  the  church,  being  at  the 
same  time  rector  of  St.  Olave's,  Exeter.'     The  annual  value  of  the  benefice 

>  See  page  355. 

'  They  were  granted  to  Thomas  Forster.  the  younger,  for  Ufe  by  indenture  dated  24th  September.  171 1. 
P.R.O.  Forfeited  Estate  Papers,  F.  24. 

'  Account  of  ye  Deanery  of  Balmbrough  by  Mr.  Drake.  Vicar  of  Xorhain — Proceedings  oj  Newcastle 
Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 

*  P.R.O.  Forfeited  Estates  Papers.  F.  25.  Though  Ogle  put  in  a  claim  to  the  tithes  there  is  no  official 
record  of  the  answer  thereto.     Ibid.  F.  29. 

=  Account  ol  ye  Deanery  of  Barabrough  by  Mr.  Drake,  Vicar  of  Norham,  1725 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle 
Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 

"  Carham  Register,  sub.  anno  1791 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 
It  is  clear  from  a  document  of  1763  that  this  chapel  belonged  to  the  Church  of  England.  The  congregation 
had  till  then  been  served  by  non-jurors. 

20  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

was  then  'in  the  extreme  depression  of  wool'  about  £150,  and  once  more 
there  had  been  htigation  over  the  tithes  'principally  between  laymen, 
Lords  Tankerville  and  Grey  on  one  part  and  Mr.  Compton  on  the  other,'  the 
former  having  obtained  a  verdict.  '  As  this  was  only  a  quarrel  for  the  spoils 
of  the  church— the  archdeacon  reported— I  did  not  make  an  inquiry  into 
the  particulars.'  ^  In  this  dispute,  Mr.  Caley  was  called  in  to  advise,  and 
he  was  at  a  loss  to  understand  what  right  the  incumbent  had  to  the  lesser 
tithes,  since  a  vicarage  had  never  been  ordained.  He  was  inclined  to 
believe  that  the  only  possible  justification  was  prescription,  and  that  was  a 
matter  of  legal  argument,-  but  the  trutli  was  probably  that  when  the  rectory, 
forfeited  in  1715,  was  restored  to  the  Forsters,  they  had  to  acquiesce  in  the 
grant  of  the  lesser  tithes  to  the  incumbent,  made  since  the  forfeiture.^^ 

The  indefinite  state  of  the  cure,  which  though  not  a  rectory  or  vicarage, 
was  undoubtedly  not  a  chapelry  of  Kirknewton  as  some  have  said,  was 
regularized  in  i860  wlu'n  it  was  declared  a  vicarage  under  the  District 
Church  Tithes  Act  of  1865,^  and  to-day  it  therefore  ranks  as  a  vicarage  valued 
at  £210  gross  and  £193  nett,  with  a  house,  the  patron  being  Mrs.  Beatrice 
Cayley,  to  whom  the  advowson  was  conveyed  when  she  purchased  the 
estate  of  Carham  in  Februar}',  1919. 

The  Church  and  Parsonage  HousE.^The  church  of  St.  Cuthbert  has 
only  its  dedication  to  vouch  its  antiquity,^  for  the  building  is  of  no  architec- 
tural interest,  and  is  by  no  means  the  immediate  successor  of  the  medieval 
structure,  portions  of  which  were  doubtless  used  for  the  repair  of  Wark  Castle.^ 
The  first  direct  allusion  to  it  occurs  in  1725,  when  the  vicar  of  Norham 
reported  that  as  the  whole  parish,  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  families, 
was  composed  of  dissenters,  '  the  People  have  built  a  conventicle  not  only 
upon  the  consecrated  ground,  but  have  joined  it  to  the  church.  The  former 
Archdeacon  sent  his  orders  to  have  it  disunited,  and  the  Present  has  done  all 
he  can  to  distinguish  ye  Church  from  ye  Conventicle.      But  as  it  is  a 

'  Archdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation,  1828 — Arch.  Aeliaita,  N.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255.  -  Caley  MS. 

'  In  1776  the  value  of  the  living  was  estimated  at  ;£i2o  per  annum.     Randal,  p.  21. 

•  London  Gazelle,  May  ist,  1866,  p.  2,705. 

'  The  earliest  evidence  as  to  the  dedication  is  found  in  the  license  to  build  a  chapel  at  Presson 
in  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century.  The  parishioners  who  attended  the  chapel  were  com- 
pelled to  attend  the  mother  church  on  the  feast  of  St.  Cuthbert.  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  82.  See 
page  92. 

«  See  page  02. 


Tenant's  house  and  the  Faction  is  so  strong,  'tis  to  be  feared  the  nusance 
will  continue.  'Tis  only  an  occasional  meeting  house.'  The  church  itself 
was  ill  cared  for,  and  the  archdeacon  had  ordered  the  provision  of  many 
things  such  as  a  surplice,  a  cover  to  the  font  and  new  flooring,  but '  the  People 
disregarded  his  Injunctions.'  The  parsonage  was  new,  for  the  lord  of  the 
manor  in  his  contention  with  the  incumbent  Ogle,  had  carried  his  persecution 
so  far  as  to  pull  down  the  existing  one,  and  had  thus  compelled  the  un- 
fortunate man  to  rebuild  it  at  his  own  cost.^  This  structure  cannot  have 
been  very  imposing,  as  when  Richard  Wallis  succeeded  Ogle  in  1748,  '  there 
was  no  Parsonage  House  fit  for  a  clergyman  to  live  in.'  The  new  incumbent 
was  therefore  compelled  '  to  build  one  at  his  own  expense  or  want  it.  He 
built  one  and  considers  himself  as  a  benefactor  to  the  living.'  Later  he 
turned  his  attention  to  the  church,  which  'was  begun  to  be  rebuilt  in  1790 
and  was  finished  in  1791  in  an  elegant  manner.'  -  In  1828  this  church  was 
said  to  seat  200,  which  Archdeacon  Singleton  declared  was  quite  sufficient 
for  the  population  of  1,300,  'as  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  inhabitants 
are  members  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland.'  xA.s  a  building  it  was  in  good  condition, 
'but  it  has  not  the  aspect  of  a  regular  English  Parochial  Place  of  w'orship, 
but  the  very  modern  sashwindowed  aspect  of  a  Scottish  Kirk  without  any 
division  between  church  and  chancel.'^  There  are  now  in  addition  to  the 
parish  church  two  chapels  of  ease  at  Howburn  and  Mindrum  respectively, 
and  the  vicarage  house  dates  from  1800  when  the  Rev.  William  Compton 
built  on  the  site  of  the  one  erected  by  Richard  Wallis. 

The  Registers  date  from  1684  and  the  following  church  plate  belongs 
to  the  parish. 

Patten  with  inscription  "  Revd.  W.  Compton,  M.A.,  Rector  of  St.  Clave,  Exeter,  and  Perpetual 
Curate  of  Carham,  Northumberland." 

Alms  Dish  with  inscription  "  The  Gift  of  the  Revd.  Richard   Wallis,  M.A.,  to  Carham  Church, 

'  .\ccount  of  ye  Deanerj^  of  Balmbrough  by  Mr.  Drake.  Vicar  of  Norhara,  1725 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle 
Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 

^  Carham  Register,  sub.  anno  1791 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 

'  Archdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation,  1828 — Arch.  Aeliana,  X.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255.  The  Archdeacon 
made  the  strange  error  of  saying  '  Carham  has  retained  the  memory  of  its  dedication  to  St.  Nicholas,  the 
tutelary  saint  of  mariners  and  fishermen.'  It  seems  a  httle  far  inland  for  mariners.  The  original  dedication 
to  St.  Cuthbert  was  never  altered  and  it  is  mentioned  in  Carham  Register  sub  anno  1791.  Proceedings 
of  Newcastle  Antiquaries.  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 



Vicar  of  Branxton,    1O64-1681.       Vicar  of 

as  incumbent  of  Carham,   January,    1748, 
In  Feb.,  1717,  lie  deposed  that  he  had  been 


1578.  Richard  Lee,  curate  of  Carham  in  1578.' 

1639 —  John  Clarke,  instituted  1639,=  sequestrated  during  the  Commonwealth  and  included  in  a  list 

of  'orthodox  clergy  plundered  and  deprived  in  the  late  rebellion. '^ 
1650.  Marke  Murrow.  incumbent  in  1630.'' 

1671 — 1679.     John  Felbridge,  instituted  1671." 
1679 — 1701.     Adam   Felbridge,  instituted  13  Sep.,   1679.^ 

Chatton,  1681-1700. 
1701 — 1748.     Thomas  Ogle,  instituted  28  Oct..   1701.'       Died 

having  enjoyed  the  living  about  50  years.' 

vicar  of  Carham  for  the  last  16  years.' 
1748—1796.     Richard  Wallis,  M.A.,  of  Queen's  College,  Oxford,  succeeded  Ogle  and  still  incumbent  at  the 

age  of  75  in  1791.'     He  died  as  vicar  in  1796.'     Buried  at  Carham  15  March,  1796. 
1796 — 1843.     William  Compton,  inducted  1798.' 

1843 — 1844.     William  Compton  Lundie,  admitted  15th  December,  1843.'- 
1844 — 1865.     Francis  Thompson,  admitted  9th  November,  1844.'- 
1865 — 1867.     John  Richard  King,  admitted  5th  October,  1865." 
1867 — 1890.     Arthur  Blenkinsop  Coulson,  admitted  13th  November,  1867.'- 
1890 — 1894.     Oliver  Warner  Darling,  admitted  19th  October,  1890.'^ 
1894 — 1904.     John  Farnworth  Anderson,  admitted  8th  August,  1894.'^ 
1904 — 1909.     John  Arthur  Constantine  Lysaght,  admitted  21st  October,  1904.'' 
1909 — 1917.     Algernon  Prest  Bird  Barker,  admitted  14th  January,  1909.'- 
1917 —  Horace  George  McKenzie  Chester  Hutchins,  admitted  9th  June,  1917.'- 


The  village  of  Carham^"  lies  in  the  north-eastern  angle  of  Glendale,  the 
Scottish  border  passing  hard  by  it  on  the  east  with  the  Tweed  lapping  its 
northern  boundary. ^^  It  consists  of  a  single  street  flanked  by  well  built  cot- 
tages and  farms,  while  due  south  lies  the  farm  of  Shidlaw,  which  forms  part  of 

'  Barnes,  Injunctions,  iS-c.  p.  40.  Randal,  Slate  oj  the  Churches,  p.  21,  gives  Rob.  de  Aberford,  1367. 
This  may  have  been  one  of  the  masters  of  the  cell. 

*  Randal,  State  0]  the  Churches,  p.  21. 

'  Hunter  MS.  80,  No.  3.  Randal,  State  of  the  Churches,  p.  21,  gives  Mark  Murray,  M.A.,  in  1627,  but 
this  seems  to  be  a  confusion  with  Mark  Murrow,  1650. 

*  Ecclesiastical  Incjuests,  1650 — Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.,  vol.  iii.  p.  5.  '  Durham  Subscription  Boohs. 
'  Carham  Register,  sub.  anno  1791 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 

'  P.R.O.  Forfeited  Estates  Papers,  F.  23. 

'  Carham  Register,  sub.  anno  1791 — Proceedings  oJ  Newcastle  Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  iv.  p.  274. 

*  Statement  made  circa  1834 — Hodgson,  MS.  Carham  Parish,  p.  3. 

"•  Earlier  Carrum,  Karh'm,  Karram,  Karrum,  Carham.  O.K.  {t^t  thcem)  carrum  "  at  the  rocks,  carr  being  an 
O.E.  word  ultimately  of  Celtic  origin.  When  Richard  of  Hexham  speaks  of  Carrum,  quod  ab  A  nglis  Werch  dicitur, 
he  seems  to  suggest  that  the  new  name  Wark  was  ousting  a  non-Anglian  one. 

"  For  the  purposes  of  census  the  whole  parish  of  Carham,  including  Downham,  Learmouth,  Mindrum, 
Moneylaws,  Presson  and  Wark  is  treated  as  one  township.  The  census  returns  are  ;  1801,  1,192  ;  181 1, 
1,316;  1821,  1.370;  1831,  1,174;  1841,  1,282;  1851,  1,362;  1861,  1,274;  1871,  1,210;  1881,  1,125; 
l8gi.  1,043;  1901,  906;  1911,  910.  In  the  year  1811,  however,  the  townships  were  separately  treated 
with  the  following  results  :  Carham  and  .Shidlaw,  163  ;  Downham,  80  ;  Hagg,  32  ;  New  Learmouth,  86  ; 
West  Learmouth,  120;  Mindrum,  170;  Moneylaws,  98;  Presson,  143;  Tythehill,  31;  Wark,  and  Wark 
Common,  393.     The  parish  of  Carham  comprises  10, 711-736  acres. 

'-  Diocesan  Registry  Records. 


the  township.  The  only  importance  that  Carham  has  ever  possessed  in 
national  history  has  been  due  to  its  position  on  the  very  edge  of  the  English 
borderland.  Very  early  was  this  manifest  when  the  inhabitants  witnessed 
the  utter  defeat  of  the  men  of  Northumbria  in  1018  at  the  hands  of  Malcolm, 
king  of  Alban,  supported  by  Eugenius  the  Bold,  king  of  the  Strathclyde 
Brythons.  So  grievous  was  the  slaughter  that  good  Bishop  Aldhun  is  said 
tp  have  died  of  sorrow  at  the  deaths  of  so  many  of  the  children  of  St.  Cuth- 
bert.i  Though  the  building  of  Wark  Castle  must  have  done  something 
towards  protecting  Carham  on  the  one  hand  and  diminishing  its  importance 
on  the  frontier  on  the  other,  in  neither  case  was  this  complete.  Nothing 
could  prevent  the  occasional  incursion  of  Scottish  malefactors,  such  as  those 
who  in  1256  came  to  the  cook's  house  in  Carham  and  beheaded  a  fellow 
countryman  of  their  own  whom  they  found  there,  escaping  scathless  after 
the  exploit,^  nor  the  loss  of  goods  and  crops  universal  throughout  the  whole 
district  as  the  result  of  a  Scottish  inroad  in  1340  and  a  fruitless  English 
campaign  by  way  of  reprisal.^  In  1380  the  whole  parish  was  so  wasted  that 
it  could  contribute  nothing  to  a  clerical  subsidy  voted  that  year.*  By  the 
sixteenth  century  indeed  it  had  been  found  necessary  to  build  '  a  little  tower 
of  defence  agayne  the  Scotts,'  as  Leland  describes  it,^  a  place  of  no  real 
strength  as  it  was  'wythout  barmekyn  or  iron  gate,'  and  was  intended  only 
as  a  place  of  refuge  '  in  a  sodenly  occurrente  skyrmyshe,'  since  in  time  of  war 
all  retired  to  the  fortress  of  Wark.^  It  was  frequently  described  as  the 
'House  of  Carham,'  as  for  instance  when  repairs  were  needed  in  1542''  after  it 
had  been  captured  and  burnt  by  the  Scots, ^  and  it  ligured  for  the  last  time 
on  record  in  the  chain  of  border  defences  described  in  1584.^  It  may  have 
fallen  into  decay  shortly  after  this,  for  on  July  i6th,  1596,  fifty  horse  of 

'  Symeonis  Monachi  Opera  Omnia  (Rolls  Series,  No.  75),  vol.  i.  p.  84  ;   vol.  ii.  p.  156;     Chron.  de  Mailros. 
p.  44.     Cf.  G.  W.  F.  Skene,  Celtic  Scotland  (Edinburgh,  1876),  vol.  i.  p.  393. 

^Assize  Roll,  40  Hen.   III. — Bain,    Cal.   of  Documents,   vol.   i.   p.   397;    Northumberland  Assize  Rolls 
(Surtees  Soc.)  p.  107. 

'  Ca/.  o/Pateni  if  oWs,  1 343- 1 345,  p.  409  ;    C«/.  o/C/ose /foHs,  1349-1354,  p.  613  ;    1354-1360,  pp.71,  120, 
185,  410. 

'  .\ccounts  of  Collector  of  Subsidy.  4  Ric.  II. — Ford  Tithe  Case,  pp.  214-215. 

'  Leland's  Itinerary,  vol.  v.  p.  67. 

"  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  30. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen,  VIII,  vol.  xvii.  p.  230. 

'  Ibid.  p.  361  ;  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  149-150. 

'  Christopher  Dacre's  Piatt  of  Castles,  &-c.  1584 — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79. 

24  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

Teviotdale  carried  off  the  'liaridage'  of  Carham  in  broad  day  williout  let 
or  hindrance.^ 

At  the  same  time,  the  existence  of  a  castle  at  Wark  did  not  take  from 
Carham  its  traditional  position  as  a  meeting  place  between  Scots  and 
English  for  the  settling  of  differences  by  conference.  As  early  as  John's 
reign  it  was  appointed  as  the  place  where  David,  earl  of  Huntingdon,  should 
appear  to  give  evidence  with  regard  to  the  English  lands  claimed  from 
him  by  the  earl  of  Hereford.-  Again,  in  February,  a  suit  brought  by  John 
Massun  of  Gascony  against  the  executors  of  the  late  king  of  Scotland,  was 
tried  before  the  royal  judges  at  Carham,^  where  also  further  mutual  com- 
plaints brought  by  both  parties  were  heard  in  the  following  year.*  It  was 
to  Carham  also  that  by  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Salisbury  of  1289  English 
envoys  were  to  repair  to  arrange  details  with  Scottish  delegates  as  to  the 
marriage  between  the  future  Edward  II.  and  the  queen  of  Scotland,  better 
known  as  the  Maid  of  Norway.^  In  the  middle  sixteenth  century  it  was 
a  very  usual  place  for  conferences  between  the  Scottish  and  English  wardens 
of  the  Marches.  Thus  in  1521,  the  laird  of  Cessford  agreed  to  meet  Lord 
Dacre  at  Carham  church  to  discuss  the  responsibility  for  certain  recent 
disturbances,^  in  1533  a  meeting  of  similar  nature  was  held,^  and  again  in 
October,  1543,^  March,  1555,"  and  March,  1571.^"  But  sometimes  Carham 
was  associated  with  deeds  other  than  those  of  reparation.  Thus,  in  May, 
1539,  the  mayor  of  Berwick  was  sent  to  Carham  evidently  with  the  idea 
of  arresting  certain  malefactors.  He  there  found  the  master  of  Carham 
and  Sir  John  Blackhead,  with  whom  he  made  merry.  The  last  named  left 
early,  but  the  mayor  remained  with  the  master  '  and  showed  him  he  had  an 
attachment  for  him,'  and  thereby  extracted  from  him  a  confession  that  'he 

•  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  154,  157.  The  meaning  of  Harriage  or  .\verage  is  obscure.  It  is 
generally  found  in  descriptions  of  service,  'arriage  and  carriage,'  and  was  retained  in  Scottish  leases  well  into 
the  eighteenth  century,  having,  however,  then  no  definitely  ascertained  meaning.  It  is  usually  defined  as 
'service  done  by  the  tenant  with  his  beasts  of  burden,'  and  may  here  mean  the  beasts  of  burden  of  Carham 

*  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  66,  mm.  ido-4 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Docuinents,  vol.  i.  pp.  115-116. 

»  Chancery  Miscellaneous  Rolls,    No.    474 — Bain,  Cal.    of  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  93  ;    Stevenson,  Scot 
Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  73. 

*  Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  158. 
'  Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  no. 

•  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  794. 

'  Ibid.  vol.  vi.  pp.  512,  519,  540.  8  Ibid.  vol.  xviii.  pt.  ii.  p.  166. 

»  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1547-1565,  p.  438. 
'"  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign.  1569-1571,  pp.  421-422. 


had  lodged  one  John  Prestman,  a  rebel,  but  requested  and  obtained  eight 
days  respite. '  On  his  way  home  the  mayor  met  Sir  John  Twizel  and 
arrested  him  forthwith,  but  the  master  took  advantage  of  his  respite  to 
transfer  himself  and  his  goods  into  Scotland  so  speedily,  that  when  next 
day  the  mayor  came  to  arrest  him,  the  bird  had  flown. ^ 

Descent  of  the  Property. — The  first  recorded  owner  of  Carham  is 
Walter  Espec,  who  early  in  the  twelfth  century  gave  the  whole  vill  together 
with  the  church  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham.^  Thus  as  recorded  in  the  Testa 
de  Nevill  the  township  was  held  by  the  prior  of  Kirkham  in  alms  of  the 
barony  of  Roos  and  owed  no  service.^  With  this  authenticated  gift  we  must 
compare  the  statement  made  by  a  Durham  monk,  who  was  a  contemporary 
of  Walter  Espec,  to  the  effect  that  Egfrid  of  Northumbria,  having  defeated 
Wulfhere  of  Mercia  by  the  aid  of  St.  Cuthbert,  gave  'Carrum'  and  all  that 
pertained  to  it  to  the  Saint.*  This  must  allude  to  the  year  674-675,  and 
coming  from  the  pen  of  a  Durham  writer  can  mean  only  that  the  gift  was 
made  to  the  monastery  of  Durham,  though  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  cell  of 
Kirkham  at  Carham  was  dedicated  to  the  same  saint. ^  This  last  fact 
tempts  one  to  treat  with  some  seriousness  the  statement  of  a  monastic 
chronicler,  who  might  be  trying  to  establish  a  claim  for  his  house,  and  if  it  were 
not  for  the  tenacity  with  which  ecclesiastical  corporations  clung  to  their 
property,  we  might  surmise  that  Carham,  once  the  property  of  Durham, 
ultimately  came  into  the  hands  of  Kirkham.^  Even  so,  it  is  not  beyond  the 
bounds  of  possibility  that  the  monks  of  Durham  had  exchanged  it  for  some 
other  property,  and  that  the  only  survival  of  their  period  of  ownership  was 

•  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  xiii.  pt.  i.  p.  462. 

2  Rievaulx  Chartnlary,  pp.  161,  244.  The  second  and  confirming  of  these  two  documents  can  be  dated 
between  11 33  and  1139.  There  is  no  evidence  that  these  were  foundation  charters,  but  rather  they  allude 
to  Kirkham  Priory  as  already  existing  cf.  pp.  xx.-xxiii.  The  second  of  these  charters  was  confirmed  by 
Henry  II.  and  again  by  Edward  II.  in  1336.     Cat.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  pp.  361-36J. 

'  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  220. 

♦  life  of  St.  Cuthbert  in  Symeonis  Monachi  Opera  Omnia  (Rolls  Series,  No.  75),  vol.  i.  p.  200. 

^  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  75. 

"  The  dedication  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  one  of  St.  Cuthbert's  miraculous  cures  may  be 
tentatively  localized  at  Carham.  According  to  Bede  (Complete  Works,  ed.  Giles,  vol.  iv.  pp.  290-292),  the 
saint  was  on  his  way  home  from  Melrose  when  it  occurred  and  the  anonymous  Lindisfarne  monk  (Ken. 
Bedae  Opera  Historica,  Eng.  Historical  Society,  vol.  ii.  App.  pp.  278-279),  who  puts  the  story  in  the  mouth 
of  a  friend,  says  that  Cuthbert  'a  domino  meo,  nomine  Sibba,  Eegfridi  regis  comite,  juxta  fiuvium  etiam 
quod  diciturOpide  (sic)  habitante,  invitatum  (sic),  ad  vicum  ejus  cum  psalamis  (sic)  et  hymnis  (sic)  cantantibus 
religiose  pervenit."  Hearing  that  one  of  his  hosts  servants  was  ill  he  sent  some  water  which  he  had  blessed 
to  the  sick  man  who  was  thus  cured.  The  place  has  been  identified  with  Wark  (Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvi. 
p.  89),  but  probably  Wark  and  Carham  were  at  that  time  one  township. 

Vol.  XI.  4 

26  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

the  dedication  of  the  church,  and  perhaps  the  fragment  of  a  pre-conquest 
cross  shaft  found  in  the  township  in  recent  years  and  now  in  the  Black  Gate 
Museum  at  Newcastle.^ 

Though  the  whole  vill  of  Carham  was  given  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham 
by  Walter  Espec,  Robert  Roos  of  Wark  seems  to  have  claimed  some  property 
therein,  as  in  1251  he  was  given  free  warren  in  his  demesne  lands  there,-  but 
the  fact  that  a  similar  grant  was  made  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham  in  the  fol- 
lowing year,=^  seems  to  suggest  a  protest  on  the  part  of  the  canons.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  when  the  inquiry  into  liberties  was  made  by  Edward  I.,  the 
prior  based  his  claim  on  an  earlier  charter  of  1222,*  so  that  this  grant  of  1252 
may  well  be  regarded  as  a  counterblast  to  that  of  the  year  before  to  Robert 
Roos.  Still  some  property  he  may  have  had,  since  '  Kariethelawe, '  which 
lay  on  the  western  side  of  the  road  leading  from  Carham  to  Presson,  was  given 
by  one  Robert  Roos  to  the  canons,  who  were  to  be  free  to  use  it  as  either  a 
cultivated  field  or  as  a  meadow,  so  long  as  they  allowed  rights  of  common 
after  the  gathering  of  crops  to  the  donor  and  his  men  of  Wark.^  Even  after 
this  gift  at  least  one  holding  in  Carham  was  claimed  by  a  private  owner,  as 
in-1301  Richard  Fermory  and  Eda,  his  wife,  brought  an  action  under  a  suit 
of  novel  disseisin  against  the  prior  in  respect  of  certain  tenements  there, 
though  they  failed  to  put  in  an  appearance  at  the  trial.^  The  village  must 
have  been  quite  small,  as  only  five  householders  were  assessed  for  the  lay 
subsidy  of  1296,  three  at  £1  8s.  each,  and  two  at  iid.  each,'  evidently 
a  formal  valuation. 

At  the  Dissolution  the  property,  consisting  of  eight  husbandlands,  was 
for  a  time  kept  in  the  king's  hands,^  but  by  1569  a  portion  thereof  at  any 
rate,  described  as  g  messuages,  6  cottages,  9  gardens,  9  orchards  and  land 
and  moor  in  Carham,  was  the  subject  of  a  fine  between  John  Carnaby  and 
Reginald  Carnaby,  plaintiffs,  and  William  Strother,  defendant.^  On  April 
nth,  1579,  Queen  Elizabeth  granted  the  'rectory  and  church'  of  Carham 
with  its  tithes  to  Sir  Christopher  Hatton  who  transferred  them  the  follow- 

^  Proceedings  of  the  Newcastle  Anliqs.  2nd  Series,  vol.  x.  p.  153.  'The  intedaced  work  on  the  Carham 
cross  shaft  is  good  and  de\'ised  from  an  eight  cord  plait  by  making  breaks  along  the  edges.  In  its  general 
style  it  resembles  some  of  the  stones  at  Whithorn,  Wigtonshire.'     Mr.  C.  F.  Romilly- Allen,  Ibid.  p.  316. 

'  Col.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  374.  '  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  405  ;  Ancient  Deeds,  vol.  v.  p.  162. 

•  Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  119.     He  also  was  allowed  the  regulation  of  the  assize  of  beer. 

=  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  75.  '  Assize  Rolls,  28-31  Edw.  I — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  p.  132. 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  in.  '  Survey  of  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  30. 

'  Feet  of  Fines,  i6th  century,  p.  22. 



ing  day  to  Thomas  Forster  of  Adderstone.^  The  latter  by  will,  dated  April 
4th,  1589,  bequeathed  to  Matthew  Forster,  the  illegitimate  son  of  his  own 
son,  Thomas  Forster,  '  Carhame  toun,  with  the  mains  thairof , '  in  tail  male. 
He  further  left  to  Peter  Forster,  the  illegitimate  son  of  his  brother  Roland 
Forster,  'two  half  landis,  lying  in  the  feildis  of  Carham,  for  21  years  .... 
together  with  all  my  ryght  of  the  bealieship  of  Carham  to  him  and  his  heads 
for  evir,'  save  that  with  regard  to  this  last  a  life  interest  was  given  to  his 
son-in-law,  Ralph  Ewart,  and  the  latter's  two  sons,  Matthew  and  Sanders. ^ 
In  1604,  Matthew  Forster  of  Adderstone  owned  the  manor  of  Carham,^  though 
the  Selbys  of  Branxton  held  some  land  there  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth 
century.*  Matthew  Forster's  grandson.  Colonel  Thomas  Forster,  was  the 
only  landowner  there  entered  in  the  rate  book  of  1663,^  and  in  1667,  when 
Thomas  Forster  settled  his  estates  in  tail  male,  they  included  the  rectory  of 
Carham,^  which  passed  on  his  death  to  his  son  Thomas,"  who  in  171 1  leased 
'the  messuage,  farm  and  lands  called  Chidlaw  in  Carham,'  and  all  his  tithes 
in  the  various  townships  of  Carham  together  with  the  glebe  lands  of  Wark, 
Learmouth  and  Carham,  his  cottages  in  Carham  and  a  yearly  rent  of 
£1  6s.  8d.  issuing  out  of  lands  in  Wark  to  his  son  Thomas  at  the  yearly  rent  of 
one  peppercorn.^  This  Thomas  was  the  rebel  general  of  1715,  and  his  estates 
were  forfeited  to  the  crown,  Shidlaw  being  then  valued  at  £80  a  year  and 
consisting  of  the  Anterdams  pasture  of  40  acres,  the  Picked  Stone  arable 
of  20  acres,  the  Rackold  and  Deanbuts  arable  of  30  acres,  the  Foreloanings 
and  Banck  arable  of  74  acres  and  the  Houghlands  of  8  acres,^  but  these  were 
not  part  of  the  rectory  of  which  Thomas  Forster  the  younger  had  never  been 
seised.^  The  remainder  of  the  lease,  which  would  not  expire  till  the  death 
of  the  exiled  rebel,  was  granted  to  William  Stoddart  for  £1,225,^°  but  the  right 
of  Thomas  Forster  the  elder  to  the  reversion  was  recognised.  In  1717  the 
latter  settled  the  rectory  and  tithes  on  himself  for  life  with  remainder  to 
the  male  issue  of  his  rebel  son  successively  in  tail  male,  with  remainder  over 
in  tail  male  successively  to  his  two  surviving  younger  sons,  John  and  Ralph, 

'  Carham  Deeds, 

-  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  pp.  164-16O.  Thomas  Forster,  deceased  son  of  the  present  testator,  by  his 
will,  proved  November  17th,  1587,  had  bequeathed  'my  Sonne  Matthew  unto  my  father,  to  use  according 
to  his  good  discretions.'     Ibid.  vol.  ii.  pp.  302-303. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1604,  p.  44.  *  Feet  oj  Fines,  ibth  century,  p.  60. 

*  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  277.  '  P.R.O.  Forfeited  Estate  Papers,  F.  25. 

'  For  genealogy  see  N.C.H.  vol.  i.  pp.  228-229.  *  P.R.O.  Forfeited  Estates  Papers,  F.  24. 

9  Ibid.  F.  23,  30.  '»  Ibid.  !■.  25. 

28  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

retaining  the  right  to  alter  these  provisions  should  he  wish  to  do  so.^  The 
rest  of  the  Carham  property,  comprising  the  capital  messuage  and  demesne 
lands  and  four  farmholds,  he  conveyed  in  1725  by  deed  of  gift  to  his  third 
son,  Ralph,  born  of  his  second  marriage.  This  division  of  the  property  came  to 
an  end  in  1738  when  Margaret  Baker,  wife  of  Francis  Baker  of  Tanfield  Leigh, 
county  Durham,  and  daughter  of  John  Forster  of  Crookletch,  having  suc- 
ceeded to  the  capital  messuage  and  demesne  as  heir  of  Ralph  Forster,  sold 
it  to  John  Forster  of  Adderstone,  who  had  already  inherited  the  rectory  and 
tithes.-  On  the  day  following  the  completion  of  this  purchase,  John  Forster 
made  his  will,  whereby  he  settled  his  property  on  his  own  issue,  secondly  on 
the  issue  of  his  brother,  Thomas,  the  general,  and  then  to  the  six  sons  of  his 
sister  Margaret,  wife  of  William  Bacon  of  Newton  Cap,  with  a  proviso  that 
his  lands  in  Carham  should  be  sold  for  the  payment  of  certain  legacies  and 
debts. ^  This  last  proviso  was  not  at  once  carried  out  as  the  estate  passed 
ultimately  to  Ferdinando  Bacon  Forster,  the  only  surviving  son  of  Margaret 
Bacon,^  who  instituted  chancery  proceedings  in  1747  whereby  a  decree  was 
made  for  the  sale  of  the  property,  which  in  1754  was  purchased  by  Anthony 
Compton  of  Learmouth.^  This  purchaser  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Anthony, 
from  whom  the  estate  passed  to  his  brother  Ralph,  and  then  to  Ralph's  son, 
Anthony,  who  by  his  will  dated  7  June,  1830,  gave  Carham  for  life  to  his  wife 
Catherine  and  settled  half  the  estate  on  each  of  his  two  daughters,  Isabella 
and  Catherine  Monypenny.  The  former  died  without  issue  and  under  the 
terms  of  her  father's  will  her  share  devolved  on  her  sister,  whose  grandson, 
Sir  Anthony  John  Compton  Thornhill,  sold  the  estate,  including  such  part 
of  West  Wark  Common  Farm  as  had  been  conveyed  by  Earl  Grey  in  1847,^ 
to  Mrs.  Beatrice  Cayley  of  Riversleigh,  Lytham,  Lancashire,  in  February, 

I  P.R.O.  Forfeited  Estates  Papers,  F.  24. 

'  Carham  Deeds. 

'  Hodgson  MSS.  Adderstone.     John  Forster  died  in  1745.     N.C.H.  vol.  i.  pp.  227,  229. 
'  The  details  of  the  descent  are  to  be  found  in  N.C.H.  vol.  i.  p.  227.      A  pedigree  of  the  Bacon  family 
is  to  be  found  Ibid.  vol.  vi.  p.  235. 

'  Carham  Deeds.     The  Compton  family  had  cast  longing  eyes  on  the  estate  as  far  back  as  1717,  when 

Anthony  Compton  of  Berwick  had  offered  to  rent  it  from  the  Commissioners  of  Forfeited  Estates.   P.R.O. 
Forfeited  Estates  Papers,  F.  23,  F.  28. 

'  See  p.  76.     West  Wark  Common  Farm  was  that  part  of  Wark  Common  allotted  to  Earl  Grey  under 
the  Wark  Common  Enclosure  Act  of  1799.     It  ranks  as  part  of  the  township  of  Learmouth. 

'  Carham  Deeds  ;   Burke's  Landed  Gentry  sub.  Compton  ;  Burke's  Baronetage  sub.  Thornhill. 




Anthony  Compton  (I.)  of  Spital  in  the  chapelry  =  Constance,  daughter  of  rThomas]  Watson  ; 
of  Tweedmouth.  |        married  i6th  June,  1631  (a). 

Anthony  Compton  (II.)  of  Berwick,  bound  apprentice  l6th  July, 
1659,  to  Thomas  Watson  of  Berwick  ;  alderman  of  Berwick, 
1667  ;  [mayor,  1670]  ;  buried  8th  June,  1712  («). 

Margery,  daughter  of  Elias  Pratt,  alderman  of  Berwick  ; 
bapt.  14th  February,  1636/7  (a)  ;  mar.  14th  January, 
1659/60  (a)  ;  bur.  2 1st  iVIarch,  1708/9  (a). 

Anthony  Compton  (III.)  of: 
Berwick  ;  bapt.  13th  June, 
1666  (a)  ;  admitted  to  the 
freedom  of  Berwick,  13th 
June,  16SS,  by  patrimony  ; 
mayor  1699,  1700,  1706, 
1718  ;  bur.  25th  Sept.,  1728 
(a);  will  dated  iSth  Sept., 
1728  ;  proved  1729, 

Hannah,  daughter  of  Jona- 
than Hutchinson,  alder- 
man of  Newcastle,  and  of 
Charlton,  parish  of  EU- 
ingham  ;  sometime  M.P. 
for  Berwick  ;  mar.  15th 
Sept.,  1690,  at  .\l\  Saints, 
Newcastle ;  buried  25th 
August,  17 1 5  (a). 

Anne,  bapt.  30lh  April,  1661  (a);  bur.  21st  March, 

1670/ 1  (a). 
Sarah,  bapt.  gth  December,  1662  ;  mar.  6th  October, 

1687,  Joseph  Watson  of  Berwick  (a). 
Anne,    bapt.  29th  .August,    1671   (a)  ;    married  2nd 

January.     16956,     William     Cooper.      .M.D.,    of 

Berwick  (a)  ;  bur.   I2th  February,  1698,'g  (a).  ^ 
Margerie,    bapt.  4th   October,   1674  (a)  ;    bur.    31st 

March,  1699  (a). 

Anthony,  born 
31st  Oct. ;  bpt. 
6th  Nov.,  1692 
(<r);  died  8th 
Febry.,  1696,7 
(c)  ;  bur.  loth 
Febry.,   1696/7 

born  23rd, 
bapt.  27th 
Feb.,  1697/8 
(a)(0;  bur- 
ied I  o  t  h 
May,  1699 

Jane,  daugh. 
of  George 
F'orster  ;  bap. 
loth  July, 
1730,  at  Aln- 
wick ;  mar. 
there  15th 
July,  1730. 

William  Compton  of  Gainslaw  ;  born  : 
in  the  year  of  his  father's  mayoralty  ; 
bap.  nth  Feb.,  1699/1700  (a)  ;  entered 
at  Lincoln's  Inn,  24th  Jan.,  1718/9  ; 
Recorder  of  Berwick,  1732-1773  ;  died 
25th  Sept.,  1773  ;  buried  in  a  maus- 
oleum in  his  own  garden  at  Gainslaw  ; 
will  dated  gth  Oct.,  1770. 

Hannah  Comptjn,  daughter  and  sole  heir;  mar.  at  Berwick,  23rd  Nov.,   1780,  Robert 
Ogle  of  Eglingham,  and  died  July,  1S21.  ^ 

Mary      , 

named  in  her 
h  u  s  b  a  n  d's 
will  ;  died  at 
20ih  F'ebry., 
1 809,  aged 
86 ;  buried 
with  her 

husband  at 

Ralph  Comp- 
ton, born  at 
Castle,  loth 
Nov.  1704(1:); 
admitted  to 
the  freedom 
of,  Berwick, 
1727,  by  pat- 
rimony ;  died 
circa  1748. 

Anthony  Compton  (IV.)  of  Car- : 
ham  ;  bapt.  at  Chillingham, 
28th  May,  1706;  purchased 
Carham  in  1754  ;  died  at  Lear- 
mouth  ;  buried  3rd  Nov.,  1755 
[c)  ;  will  dated  3rd  Oct.,  1755  ; 
proved  1756. 

Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
John  Wood  of  Presson  ; 
bond  of  marriage,  1 6th 
F'eb.,  1730/1  ;  died  at 
West  Chevington  ; 

buried   9th   Dec.    1766 

I    I    I    I    I 
Ruth,  born  and  died  27th  June,  1693  (c). 
Ruth,  born  13th,  bapt.  17th  Nov.,  1695  (a)  (c)  ;  married  Henry 

Selwyn  of  Berwick  ;  bond  of  marriage,  29th  July,  1717.  ^ 
Margery,  died  1698,  aged  14  days  (c). 
.Miriam,  bapt.  20th  .March,  1698  9  (a). 
Hannah,  born  Sept.,  1701  (c) ;   mar.  20th  Jan.,  1726  7  [6] 

William  Jones,  Comptroller  H.M.  Customs,  Berwick.  ^ 

Anthony  Compton  = 
(V.)  of  Carham  ; 
born  atLearmouth; 
bapt.  5th  Oct.,  1732 
(c)  ;  died  at  Gains- 
law,  28th  April  ; 
buried  2nd  May, 
1770(c) ;  will  dated 
7th  Jan.,  1770,  for 
same  year. 

;  Jennet  Home, 
parish  of  Eccles 
[of  the  family 
of  the  Earl  of 
Home]  ;  mar. 
1st  June,  1769 
(c)  ;  mar.  sec- 
ondly, James 
Smith  of  Edin- 

Ralph  Compton  ; 
of  Hethers- 
law  ;  succeed- 
ed to  Carham 
on  the  death 
of  his  brother, 
and  died 
there  ;  buried 
7th  April, 
1782  (c). 

Bridget,  daugh- 
ter    of     

died  at  Red- 
den, N.B., 
31st  July, 

1803,  aged  73 
{c) ;  will  dated 
7  th  May. 


William  Compton, 
of  Wester  Melk- 
ington,  born  at 
bapt.  29th  Jan., 
1739/40  M;  cap- 
tain 65th  foot ; 
will  dated  22nd 

July.       17S3 ; 

proved  1807. 

Elizabeth,  dau.  =  Thomas  Compton,  born  at  Lear-  =  Frances,    dau. 

of     William          mouth;  bapt.  7th  Nov.,  1741  (c) ;  of        Robert 

farmed     successively     at     West  Smart ;  mar. 

Chevington,     Hartlaw     and     of  l8th       Dec, 

Eshot,  where  he  died   12th  June,  1776         (c) ; 

17981    aged    57    (c)    i./.  ;     will  died  at  Aln- 

dated  25th  April,  1797  ;   proved  wick,      aged 

1799.  81. 

of  William 
Wood  of 
married  at 
l6th  July, 

John  Comp-  Mary,    born    at    Learmouth  ; 

ton,     died  bapt.   1st  .March,  1737/8  {c)  ; 

at      Lear-  mar.  30th  Jan.,  1759,  Thomas 

mouth  ;  Shafto  of  Dunston,  co.  Dur- 

bur.     nth  ham  (c)  ;    died  at  .Melking- 

Jan.,   1748  ton,   :nd  Aug.,    iSll,   aged 

{c).  74  (c) ;  will  dated  18th  April, 
1 8 10. 



Anthony  Compton  •■ 
(VI.)  of  Carham  ; 
born  at  Hethers- 
law;  bpt.  3rd  Nov., 
1765  ('')  ;  mayor 
of  Berwick,  1820  ; 
died  at  Ilfracombe, 
1 6th  July,  1 8  30(0. 

Catherine,  daugh- 
ter of  Thomas 
Wood  of  Ham- 
burgh ;  bapt. 
there  30ih  Oct., 
1787  ;  died 

Ralph  Compton 
of  Learmouth, 
afterwards  of 
Melkington  ; 
born  at  Ileth- 
erslaw  ;  bapt. 
26th  Aug.,  1767 
{i)  ;  died  22nd 
Aug.,  1837  (</). 

Isabella,  daughter  and  co- 
heir ;  born  7th  April,  1813  ; 
mar.  at  Carham,  31st  Jan., 
1833,  John  Hodgson  Hinde 
of  Elswick,  and  died  s.p. 
at  Torquay,  26th  Nov., 

Catherine  -Moneypenny,  dau. 
and  co-heir  ;  mar.  Richard 
Hodgson  of  Newcastle  and 
of  Fryerside,  co.  Durham, 
who  assumed  the  additional 
name  of  Huntley  :  she  died 
in  Edinburgh.  ^ 

Isabella,  dau.  of 
John  (a),  sister 
of  James  Darl- 
ing of  Hethers- 
law,  Cornhill  ; 
married  nth 
January,  1803  ; 
died  at  Lear- 
mouth, 25th 
.April,  1817, 
aged  37  (</). 

William  Compton,  clerk  in 
orders,  born  at  Hethers- 
law;  bpt.  4th  June.  1769 
[i) ;  of  Lincoln  Coll.,  Ox- 
ford ;  matric.  12th  Nov., 
1787,  aged  18;  B.A., 
1791;  .\I.A.,  1796;  admit- 
ted to  the  freedom  of  Ber- 
wick, 1791, by  patrimony; 
successively  vicar  of  St. 
Olave,  Exeter,  and  in- 
cumbent of  Carham. 

Mary,  dau. 
of  Hlake 
Stow  Lun- 
d  i  e  of 
S  p  i  t  a  I, 
parish  of 
H  u  tt  on, 
Berwic  k- 
shire;  mar. 
gth  Nov., 
1 801  (c). 

I    I 

William  Compton,  bpt.  13th  Feb.,  1803  (c) ;  of  Trin.  Coll., 
Oxford  ;  matric.  27th  June,  i82i,aged  18  ;  B.A.,  1825  ; 
M.A.,  1828;  assumed  the  additional  name  of  Lundie ; 
died  at  Wark,  7th  December,  1886,  aged  85  (</).  4, 


Thomas  Compton 
of  London,  born 
at  Carham  ;  bapt. 
4th  Feb.,  1 77 1 
(f)  ;  admitted  to 
the  freedom  of 
Berwick  in  May, 

Fenwick    Compton  =  Mar}',  daughter 

of  New  Lear- 
mouth ;  admitted 
to  the  freedom 
of  Berwick  by 
patrimony,  1799  ! 
died  circa  1830. 

of  Thomas 
band  of  El- 
wick  ;  mar. 
at  Belford, 
29th  Nov., 

Mary,  bapt.  nth  Oct.,  1761  {i)\  wife  of  Thomas  Nesbit 

of  Redden,  Berwickshire.  4, 
Hannah,  bapt.  I3lh  March,  1 763  {6). 
Hannah,  bapt.  23rd  June,  1764  (/i). 
Elizabeth,  wife  of  William   Bugg,  postmaster  of  Belford  ; 

bond  of  marriage  13th  August,  1788.  ^ 
Bridget,    bapt.    30th    April,     1772    (c)  ;     named    in   her 

mother's  will  ;  died  unmarried  May,  1829. 

Ralph  Compton  of 
London,  solicitor, 
and  of  Melkington; 
born  at  Learmouth  ; 
bapt.  8ih  Feb.,  1807 
(c) ;  died  at  Consett, 
CO.  Durham  ;  buried 

Hannah  Jemima, 
dau.  of  Grieve 
Smith  ;  died  at 
Brooms,  parish 
of  Lanchester, 
6th  May,  1895  ; 
buried  at  Lan- 

John  Comp- 
ton, Lieut. 
R.N. ;  born 
at  Lear- 

mouth ;  bpt. 
1st  June, 
1809  (c). 

Anthony  Compton  (VII.)  ^Elizabeth, 

of  H.M.  Customs, 
London  ;  admitted  to 
Grays  Inn,  nth  June, 
1S35,  being  then  25 
years  of  age ,  died 
9ih      February,     18S1 

dau.      of 

died  3rd 
D  ec em- 
ber, 1882 

Anthony  Compton  (VIII. ),=  Elizabeth   Hughes,  widow. 

Ralph  Compton  of 
Brooms  Cottage, 
parish  of  Lan- 
chester ;  died  un- 

Caroline,  wife 
of  C.  D.  W. 
Balleny,  of 

born  at  Feckham,  S.E., 
30th  Oct.,  1839  ;  died  at 
Epsom,  20th  May,  1882. 

dau.  of  Joseph  Ward, 
surgeon ;  mar.  at  H  ackney 
West,  1st  May,  1879. 

Anthony  Compton  (IX.),  born  at   Pont  Aven,  Brittany, 
9th  March,  :S8o. 

I  I  I  I 
Elizabeth  Sophia,  born 
at  Learmouili  ;  bapt. 
14th  Dec,  1803  (e); 
wife  of  Philip  Legge 
of  Hetton-le-Hole,  co. 

Margaret ;  bapt.  gth 
June,  1805  (c) ;  wife 
of  Rev.  John  Ayton 
Wood,  incumbent  of 

Isabella ;     married    first 

Rowe,  M.D.,  and 

second     Brown, 

M.D.,  of  Coldstream. 

Eliza,  died  unmarried. 

(a)  Berwick   Register. 
(i)   Ford  Register. 

(c)  Carham   Register. 
(rf)  M.  1.  Carham. 

(e)   Raine,  Ttst.  Dmulm. 

(_f)  Ex.  Inf.  Mr.  Edmund  Compton. 


Wark^  is  to-day  a  straggling  village  picturesquely  nestling  under  the 
shadow  of  the  mound  on  which  stands  all  that  remains  of  the  keep  of  Wark 
Castle.  Its  irregularly  built  cottages  with  their  gardens  form  a  pleasant 
foreground  to  the  splendid  view  of  the  Tw-eed  which  is  to  be  obtained  from 
the  ruined  fortress. 

'  Earlier  Werch.     O.E.(^«)tf«o>-c=  fortification. 



Originally  an  insignificant  member  of  the  honour  of  Carham,  it  very 
soon  usurped  the  position  which  should  belong  to  the  vill  giving  its  name 
to  the  parish,  and  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  became 
the  head  of  the  famous  barony  of  Roos.  This  was  primarily  due  to  its  geo-  -^ 
graphical  position,  which  marked  it  out  as  the  site  of  an  important  border 
castle.  It  is  even  possible  that  what  was  later  a  separate  manor  and  town- 
ship was  originally  merely  part  of  the  vill  of  Carham,  since  Richard  of  Hex- 

FiG.   I. — Wark.     Thatched  Cottages. 

ham,  writing  about  1133,  alludes  to  'Carham  which  by  the  English  is  called 
Wark.'  ^  It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  name  of  the  township  is  derived  from 
the  name  of  the  castle  or  'work'  in  its  midst,  which  strengthens  the  sup- 
position that  its  separate  existence  as  well  as  its  name  dates  from  the  building 
of  the  fortress. 

Descent  op  the    Barony  and   Manor. — The  honour  or  barony  was 
originally  granted  by  Henry  I.^  to  Walter  Espec,  lord  of  Helmsley,  county 

'  Richard  of  Hexham,  pp.  145-146. 

•  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  vol.  ii.  p.  563. 

32  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

York,  who  died  in  1153,  leaving  as  his  heirs  his  three  sisters,  Hawise  wife  of 
Wilham  Bussey,  Albreda  wife  of  Nicholas  Traille,  and  Adeline  wife  of  Peter 
Roos.^  There  seems  reason  to  believe  that,  for  a  time  at  least,  Henry  II. 
kept  the  inheritance  in  his  own  hands,^  but  by  1191  Robert  Roos,  great 
grandson  of  Peter  and  Adeline,  was  in  possession  at  Wark,  and  had  taken  over 
the  responsibility  of  a  debt  due  to  the  crown  from  that  place,  for  which  in  the 
previous  year  the  sheriff  had  been  charged.^  Robert's  position  was  finally 
regularized  in  1200,  when  King  John  confirmed  him  in  all  that  honour  which 
had  belonged  to  Walter  Espec,  to  be  held  on  the  same  terms  as  Walter  had  held 
it  of  Henry  I.,  provided  that  the  grantee  gave  30  librates  of  land  from  the 
honour  of  Carham  in  Northumberland  both  to  William  Bussey  and  Gilbert 
Traille,  and  50  librates  to  Jordan  Bussey,  the  last  being  only  a  life  grant  with 
reversion  to  Robert  Roos  and  his  heirs.  The  whole  of  the  said  honour  in 
Northumberland  and  elsewhere,  except  the  30  librates  with  5  knight's  fees  each 
held  by  William  Bussey  and  Gilbert  Traille,  were  to  be  held  in  chief.*  Thus 
Robert  Roos  was  confirmed  in  the  possession  of  the  honour  of  Carham,  or  as  it 
was  hereafter  called  the  barony  of  Roos,  which  consisted  of  the  townships  of 
Wark,  Learmouth,  Mindrum,  Carham,  Presson,  Moneylaws,  Downham, 
Paston,  Shotton,  Kirknewton,  West  Newton,  Lanton,  Lilburn,  Wooperton, 
Tithngton,  Ilderton,  Rosedon,  Shawdon,  Bolton,  Abberwick,  Buston,  Sturton 
Grange  and  a  moiety  of  Glanton,  and  was  held  for  2  knight's  fees.^  In  addition 
to  this,  the  barony  owned  25s.  cornage,^  and  by  1333  at  any  rate  was  responsible 
for  keeping  in  repair  a  house  within  the  castle  of  Newcastle-upon-Tyne.'^ 

This  Robert  Roos. was  returned  as  holding  the  barony  in  capite  in 
August,  1212,^  but  it  seems  that  shortly  before  this  he  had  entered  religion, 
and  the  custody  of  his  lands  and  chattels  had  been  entrusted  by  the  king 
to  Philip  Ulecotes.^     Before  his  death  in  1226^"  he  provided  for  his  younger 

^  Kirkham  Foundation  Charter — Monasticon,  vol.  vi.  p.  209;  Sixteenth  Century  Pedigree  of  Roos — Ibid. 
vol.  V.  p.  280. 

2  Pipe  Rolls,  4  Hen.  11.  and  11  Hen.  H. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  pp.  3,  8. 

'  Pipe  Rolls,  34  Hen.  H.,  1  Ric.  I.,  2  Ric.  I. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  pp.  46,  48,  51. 

*  Cal.  Rot.  Cart.  p.  32b. 

'  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211  (which  gives  2j  knight's  fees),  p.  231  ;  Red  Book  of 
the  Exchequer,  vol.  ii.  p.  563.  In  1279  a  jury  declared  that  the  barony  was  held  for  one  knight's  fee.  North- 
umberland Assise  Rolls,  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  327. 

*  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  vol.  ii.  p.  713.  '  Cal.  of  Inquisitions,  Miscellaneous,  vol.  ii.  p.  338. 
'  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  vol.  ii.  p.  563;   Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  231.       The  date 

of  the  original  return  on  which  the  Testa  entry  was  based  is  August  5th,  1212.  Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xxv. 
PP-  153-159. 

'  May,  1212.  Rot.  Pal.  14  John  m.  6,  Rot.  Claus.  14  John  m.  9 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  90. 
He  had  become  a  Templar.  "  Excerpta  e  Rot.  Fin.  vol.  i.  pp.  152,  169. 


son  Robert,  with  the  consent  of  his  elder  son  WilHam,  by  enfeoffing  him 
with  the  barony,  which  was  to  be  held  by  the  younger  Robert  and  the 
legitimate  heirs  of  his  body,  paying  therefor  to  the  elder  Robert  and  his 
heirs  at  the  Fair  of  Roxburgh  annually  a  sore  gerfalcon  in  lieu  of  all  service, 
saving  the  king's  foreign  service.^  The  king  not  only  sanctioned  this 
arrangement,  but  granted  the  new  owner  and  his  heirs  the  right  to  hold  a 
weekly  market  on  Tuesday  and  a  yearly  fair  there  on  the  vigil,  the  feast  and 
the  morrow  of  St.  Giles. ^  As  time  went  on  there  were  several  changes  as 
to  the  details  of  this  grant.  In  1241  the  weekly  market,  which  since  1227 
had  been  changed  to  Saturday,  was  moved  to  Friday,^  and  in  1252  it  was 
again  placed  on  Tuesday  and  the  fair  moved  to  Whitsuntide.^  Further, 
in  1 25 1  Robert  Roos  secured  the  right  of  free  warren  in  his  demesne  lands 
in  Wark  and  elsewhere  in  the  parish  of  Carham,^  but  he  did  not  have  a  very 
peaceful  possession  of  his  property.  He  had  been  one  of  those  to  whom 
Henry's  youthful  daughter,  Margaret,  had  been  given  in  charge  after  her 
marriage  to  the  equally  youthful  Alexander  HI.  of  Scotland,^  but  he  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  sufficiently  active  in  supporting  English  interests  in 
Scotland,  and  in  1255  a  certain  Reginald  of  Bath,  a  physician  sent  to  pre- 
scribe for  the  little  queen,  reported  him  for  unfaithfulness  in  his  charge.'^ 
Margaret  herself  complained  that  he  kept  her  a  virtual  prisoner,  denied  her 
the  attendants  she  desired,  and  would  not  allow  her  husband  to  be  left 
alone  with  her,^  whereupon  he  was  summoned  to  England  in  disgrace,  and  the 
seizure  of  his  lands  was  ordered,  despite  the  championship  of  the  Earl 
Marshall.^  Some  attributed  his  disgrace  to  Henry's  desire  for  his  wealth, 
others  to  the  jealousy  of  the  northern  baronage,^"  but  probably  a  wish  to 
control  his  castle  was  the  English  king's  main  motive,  as  he  was  constantl}- 
borrowing  it,  even  during  the  time  when  he  claimed  it  as  forfeit, ^^  an  interesting 
example  of  his  extraordinary  weakness.  Ultimately,  however,  in  1259  ^^^ 
charges  were  withdrawn,  and  Robert's  right  to  the  castle  and  manor  were 
specifically  asserted, ^^  not  however  before  both  he  and  his  servants  had 

'  Inspeximus  and  confirmation  of  Robert  Roos's  charter,  .\ugust  15th.  1227 — Bain.  Cal.  of  Documents. 
vol.  i.  p.  177  ;  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  56.  .\ccording  to  the  witnesses  the  original  charter  cannot 
have  been  earlier  than  1221. 

'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  66  ;  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1227-1231,  p.  il. 

^  Ca!.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  259.  "  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  381. 

=  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  374  ;  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  346. 

»  Matthew  Paris,  Chronica  Majora  (Rolls  Series),  vol.  v.  p.  272.  '  Ibid.  pp.  501-502. 

»  Ibid.  p.  505.  »  Ibid.  pp.  505-530.  '»  Ibid.  pp.  528,  569.  "  See  pages  48-40. 

"  Curia  Regis  Roll,  No.  161— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxi.  p.  354  ;  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  25. 
Vol.  XI.  5 

34  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

suffered  considerable  loss  in  the  matter  of  crops  and  stock  at  the  hands  of  the 
king's  bailiffs. 1 

This  Robert  died  in  1274,2  and  his  son  of  the  same  name  was  given 
seisin  of  the  castle  and  manor  in  May  of  that  year,^  but  himself  died  within  a 
few  months.'*  The  heir  was  a  minor,  and  the  guardianship  fell  to  Robert 
Roos  of  Helmsley,  who  had  some  difficulty  in  securing  his  person  as  the 
grandmother  refused  to  surrender  him  till  she  had  been  assured  of  her  dower. ^ 
For  a  time  at  any  rate  the  estate  was  in  the  hands  of  the  crown,  since  in  1293 
a  jury  reported  that  certain  royal  officials  had  been  guilty  of  peculation 
there  while  the  lands  of  the  late  Robert  Roos  were  in  the  king's  hands. 
The  subescheator  was  accused  of  having  taken  60s.  from  the  vill  of  Wark 
and  similar  sums  from  the  vills  of  Learmouth  and  Presson,  and  from  the 
master  of  Carham  and  Philip  Ridale,  not  to  mention  3  quarters  of  oats  valued 
at  6s.  from  the  personalty  of  the  deceased  and  53s.  4d.  from  his  executors. 
He  tried  to  throw  the  responsibility  on  his  predecessor  in  office,  now 
deceased,  but  he  was  found  to  have  taken  his  share.®  This  enquiry  doubt- 
less marks  the  coming  of  age  of  the  heir,  who,  as  Robert  Roos,  claimed  the 
right  to  many  liberties  in  answer  to  a  writ  of  Quo  Warranto  this  same  year. 
To  his  market  and  fair  privileges,  based  on  the  charter  of  1251,  the  king's 
attorney  offered  a  successful,  but  totally  unjust,  opposition  by  mistaking  his 
grandfather  for  his  great-grandfather,  and  asserting  that  he  was  not  the  heir 
of  the  Robert  Roos  who  died  in  1226  and  gave  Wark  to  his  younger  son. 
Perhaps  he  may  be  pardoned  for  the  confusion  by  those  who  have  tried  to 
work  out  the  genealogy  of  this  remarkable  family,  which  in  all  its  branches 
displayed  such  devotion  to  the  name  '  Robert,'  and  when  compelled  to  choose 

''^  Close  Roll,  .)3  Hen.  III.  m.  isdo  ;  Rot.  Fin.  44  Hen.  III.  ra.  11 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol. 
i.  pp.  418,  425. 

'  Rot.  Hund — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp    loi,  102,  114  ;    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  49. 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1272-1279,  pp.  83-84. 

*  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  93  ;  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  32.  There  is  no  record  of  Northumbrian 
estates  in  the  inquisition  of  either  father  or  son.  The  returns  must  have  been  lost  as  both  are  described  as  'of 

^  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  ^,  m.  J,  No.  7,  mm.  4  do.  11,  No. 11,  m.  3,  No.  13,  m.  35do,  No.  26,  m.  99 — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  141-143,  173,  175,  221,  247,  253,  383.  The  name  of  the  heir  and  his  exact  relation- 
ship is  not  given  in  any  of  the  records,  but  it  is  stated  that  part  of  his  lands  were  in  custody  of  Sapiencia, 
widow  of  William  of  Carlisle,  who  in  October  1279,  received  the  manor  of  Gargou  as  overlord  of  Robert,  son 
of  Robert  Roos  of  Wark.  deceased,  saving  the  rights  of  dower  belonging  to  Robert's  \vidow,  Christine.  Cal. 
of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  32.  The  elder  Robert's  widow  was  Margaret,  so  evidently  the  heir  in  question  was  her 
grandson.  His  relationship  is  finally  made  certain  by  the  fact  that  in  1 293  he  based  his  right  to  hold  a  market 
and  fair  on  the  charter  granted  in  1251  to  Robert  Roos,  whom  he  describes  as  his  grandfather.  Quo  H'ar- 
ranlo — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  135;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  p.  390. 

°  Assize  Roll,  21  F.dw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  112 


another  was  almost  always  content  with  that  of  'William,'  Much  harm 
was  not  done  by  this  miscarriage  of  justice  as  the  claimant  secured  the 
restoration  of  his  market  privileges  by  the  payment  of  a  fine  of  20s.  He 
also  was  allowed  his  other  liberties  without  protest,  including  the  regula- 
tion of  the  assizes  of  bread  and  beer,  infangenthef,  gallows,  pillory,  tumbril, 
and  free  warren,  not  only  in  Wark,  but  in  all  its  dependent  vills.^ 

This  Robert  Roos  was  the  last  of  his  branch  of  the  family  to  hold  Wark, 
for  in  1296,  when  war  between  Scotland  and  England  was  brewing,  he  was 
induced  to  throw  in  his  lot  with  the  former,  seduced  from  his  English 
allegiance  by  the  charms  of  a  fair  Scottish  lady.^  He  tried  to  induce  his 
uncle, ^  William  Roos,  to  join  him,  but  the  latter  not  only  refused,  but  at  once 
informed  the  English  king  of  his  kinsman's  intention.  As  a  result  a  de- 
tachment, some  thousand  strong,  was  sent  to  prevent  the  surrender  of  Wark 
Castle  to  the  enemy,  but  having  camped  at  Presson  for  the  night,  it  was 
surrounded  and  surprised  by  a  Scottish  force  led  by  Robert  Roos  himself 
and  very  few  escaped  to  tell  the  tale.*  Robert  was,  of  course,  proclaimed  a 
traitor,  though  morally  speaking  he  was,  like  many  of  these  borderers,  as 
much  a  Scot  as  an  Englishman,^  and  his  lands  were  forfeited,^  but  the  crown 
surrendered  them  at  once  without  any  formalities  to  William  Roos  of 
Helmsley  as  his  escheat. '^  In  1301  William  desired  a  more  definite  title, 
probably  in  view  of  expected  claims  by  the  heirs  of  Robert  Roos,  and  so 
the  king  ordered  an  inquiry  as  to  whom  the  property  had  lawfully  escheated. 
Whatever  the  result,  William  was  to  be  given  a  legal  title  ;  if  it  had  escheated 
to  the  overlord,  this  was  to  be  confirmed  by  letters  patent,  if  it  had  escheated 
to  the  king  then  a  formal  grant  by  charter  was  to  be  issued.^  It  was  decided 
that  the  property  had  escheated  to  the  crown,  and  a  grant  by  charter  was 
made  to  William  Roos  on  the  ground  of  his  loyal  service  in  Gascon}^  but 

^  Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  134-136;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xvii.  p.  196,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  390-391,  756. 

^  According  to  Scalacronica ,  pp.121-122,  this  was  Christine  Mowbray.  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  p.  92,  says 
he  wished  to  marry  her,  but  he  was  already  married  to  his  wife  Laura.     See  pedigree  p.  37. 

'  The  chroniclers  call  him  "  brother"  but  see  p.  94  n.  4.  for  an  identification  of  this  William  Roos. 
Cf.  page  34.  H.  5  for  discussion  as  to  whether  Robert  Roos,  the  traitor,  was  son  or  grandson  of  Robert  Roos 
who  was  enfeoffed  by  Robert  Roos  (Fursan.). 

*  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  pp.  92-94;     Trevet,  p.  432.     Rishanger,  pp.  156-157,  copies  Trevet. 

'  Wark  is  placed  among  lands  held  by  Scots  in  England  in  a  document  of  1296.  Stevenson,  Scottish 
Documents,  vol.  ii.  pp.  47,  49. 

«  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1288-1296,  p.  518  ;    Rot.  Scot.    vol.  i.  p.  28. 

'  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  31  ;  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1292-1301,  p.  231. 

'  Privy  Seals,  30  Edw.  I.  file  9 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  343.  The  editor  has  taken  December 
2nd,  30  Edw.  I.  to  be  1302,  where  it  should  be  1301. 

36  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

it  is  significant  that  at  the  same  time  he  received  a  grant  of  free  warren/ 
which  suggests  that  the  other  extensive  Hberties  possessed  by  Robert  Roos 
were  not  allowed  to  his  cousin. 

Robert  Roos  gained  nothing  by  his  treason,  his  lady  love  spurned  him, 
the  Scots  failed  to  appreciate  him,  and  a  fugitive  from  Scotland  as  well  as 
England,  he  died  in  exile, ^  leaving  two  daughters  as  his  coheirs,^  the  elder 
of  whom,  Margaret,  married  John  Salve>ai.  In  1305  Margaret  and  her  sister 
Isabel  began  a  long  struggle  to  secure  inclusion  in  the  pardon  granted  to 
those  Scots  who  had  made  their  submission,  as  thereby  they  might  secure 
the  restoration  of  their  father's  estates.  The  matter  was  tried  by  the  king 
in  parliament  that  year,  and  the  result  was  unfavourable  to  the  petitioners,'* 
but  John  Salveyn  and  Margaret  returned  to  the  attack  in  1310,  only  to  have 
the  case  adjourned,  since  the  defendant,  William  Roos,  son  of  the  grantee 
of  1301,  was  in  Scotland  on  the  king's  service.^  Isabel,  who  had  married 
John  Knox,  also  made  an  attempt  to  secure  her  share  in  1311.®  Next  year 
the  efforts  of  the  co-heirs  were  successful  in  so  far  that  they  received  a  pardon, 
and  the  escheator  was  ordered  to  divide  the  estate  between  them,  Isabel's 
portion  to  be  retained  in  the  king's  hands  doubtless  because  she  was  under  age.'' 
But  royal  orders  and  their  execution  were  by  no  means  synonymous  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  II.,  and  everywhere  the  escheators  met  with  resistance. 
At  Wark  the  subescheator  was  not  allowed  to  deliver  his  award  of  partition, 
but  was  seized  as  he  rode  towards  the  castle  and  put  across  the  Tweed  after 
the  king's  writs,  the  extent,  the  partition  and  other  warrants  had  been  taken 
from  him  and  his  clerk. ^  Fresh  orders  to  partition  were  issued  in  1314," 
but  in  view  of  the  state  of  the  border  from  then  onwards,  it  is  hardly  sur- 
prising that  no  attempt  to  carry  them  out  was  made. 

'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  21,  23. 

*  Scalacronica,  p.  122  ;  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  p   94. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  iv.  pp.  284,  285. 

'  Rot.  Pari.  vol.  i.  pp.  183-184. 

5  Ibid.  ;  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  203,  m.  54 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  216-219.  Despite  his 
services  in  Scotland  William  Roos  was  still  a  minor  (Corayn  Rege  Roll,  No.  202,  m.  i — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxv.  pp.  209-210),  but  he  cannot  have  been  the  same  William  as  the  one  who  had  served  in  Gascony 
before  1301.  In  a  legal  case  of  1355,  the  elder  William  is  said  to  have  died  in  1316  (Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354- 
1360  p.  174),  but  this  must  be  a  mistake,  for  the  defendant  in  13 10  is  called  Wilham,  son  of  William  Roos, 
whereas  the  elder  William's  father  was  Robert  Roos. 

'  Privy  Seals,  4  Edw.  II.  File  5 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  40. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1364-1367,  p.  411  ;  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1307-1313,  p.  470. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  v.  p.  218. 

»  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1313-1318,  p.  40. 




Arms:  Gold  three  bougets  sable.  So  blasoned  for  "  Kobt.  de  Rocs  de 
Werke"  in  Glover's  Roll  of  Henry  III  date.  The  charges  arc  those 
of  the  elder  line  of  Helmsley  differenced  by  change  of  colour.  The 
arms  are  canting  in  origin  deriving  from  the  three  bougets  borne 
by  "Robert  Trussebut"  (Charles'  Roll  of  the  time  of  Henry  111.) 
whose  heiress  married  Roos 

Adeline  =Walter 
(w) .  Espec 

I    M- 


Walter  Espec, 
his      father 




I  ! 

Hawise  —  William     Albreda  = 
(w).  Bussey         [w). 

I     {w). 

I    I    I 
William    Bussey  (;>•)  fa^) . 
Jordan  Bussey  (.v)  (ap). 
Roger  Bussey  [x). 

:  Nicholas 




I    I    I    I 
Wilfrid  Traille  (.x). 

William  Traille  {x): 

Nicholas  Traille  (x). 

Gilbert  Traille  W  (ap). 

Everard  Roos  (*).       Robert  Roos  (w) ,  paid  lOO  marks  for  lands  of  Walter  Espec,  1 1 58  {ad} .  ^  Sybil  Valoines  {w). 

William  Roos  of  Helmesley(a)  ;  held  lands  : 
in  Northumberland  in  capite  in  1256  (c). 

:  Lucy  (w). 


Isabel  daughter  and  heir  =  Robert  Roos  (iv )  overlord 
of  William  Daubeney  ;  I  of  Wark,  127.)  (e);  died 
aged  50  in  1285  (v).  1285  {7;). 

Rose  (w),  daugh.  and  heir 
of  Robert  Trussebut 



Roos      (w) 
living    1176 

Isabel  (A),  daughter  =  Robert  Roos  (aA),  called 

of  William,  king 
of  Scots  (w). 

Fursan ;  became  a  Tem- 
plar (w) ;  died   1226(a). 

William  Roos,  aged  30  in  1285  =  Matilda 
(v)  ;    granted    Wark    1297 
(aa) ;  died  before  131c  (ak). 

CO-  Robert 

heiress     of  Roos 

John  Vaux  (aa). 

Robert  Roos,  enfeoffed  =  Margaret,       sister 

with   Wark 
father     (b) 
1274  [e). 

by     his 

and  co-heiress  of 
Peter  Brus  (/) ;  died 
1306  (i). 

Robert  Roos,  called 
Robert  Fitz  Robert 
of  Wark,  in  1267 
and  1269  (.9) ;  given 
seisin  of  Wark 
1274  (e)  ;  died  1274 

Christine  {g), 
daughter  of 
Roger  Bert- 
ram (d). 

A  daughter  = 
a     son       of 
Roger  Bert- 
ram (d). 

A  daughter  = 
a  son  of 
Roger  Mer- 
lay  (d). 

Christine— William  Roos  (A)  of 


Mindrum       (ah)  ; 
died  before   1269 

Robert    Roos    o.s.p. 
before  1293  (ae). 

William  Roos  (ae)  of  Downham  living  at  Downham 
1296  (ag)  ;    destrained  for  knighthood  1278  (an). 

Robert   Roos    a  minor  in   1274  (»-);=  Laura   wife  of  Robert 
suffers  forfeiture  for  treason    1296  Roos    of     Wark    in 

(aa).  1294  («»»)• 

Margaret,   aged 
15  in  1307  (i). 

JohnSal-  Isabel,  aged  12  in  =  John 

veyn(«).  1307   o.s.p.     (i);         Knox 

before  1355  («)■  {'«)■ 

William  Roos  of  Presson  later: 
of  Kendal  (t)  ;  describes  him- 
self in  1307  as  brother  of  the 
traitor  Robert  Roos  (ao)  but 
probably  his  uncle  ;  died 
1310  (al). 

Gerrard  Salveyn,  claims  Wark  in  1355  («). 

Thomas   Roos,  aged  i\ 
and  heir  (al).  4, 

m  1310,    son 



Margery    (m)    Badles-  =  William  Roos    a  minor  and  holding  Wark  in  1310(0*);   surrended  Wark  to  the 
mere  (a/).  I       crown  in  1317  {p)  ;   died  3rd  February,  1343  (/.) 

William  Roos  aged  15  in  1343  (/). 

Thomas  Roos  (w). 

Margaret  (to). 

Matilda  (if). 

(a)  Excerpta  c  Rot.  Fin.  vol.  i.  pp.  152,  169. 

(6)   Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  56. 

(c)    Northumberland    Assize    Rolls    (Surtees    Soc), 

p.  127. 
(ci)   Curia  Regis  Roll,  No.  121 — Duke's  Transcripts, 

vol.  xxi.  pp.  214-215,  217. 
(e)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  ii.  p.  49  ;    Cal.  of  Close 

Rolls,  1272-1279,  pp.  83-84. 
(/)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  265  ;    Cal.  of  Close 

Rolls,  1272-1279,  p.  183. 
(g)   Ca/.  o/'/ni?. /'.)».  vol.  ii.  p.  93  ;  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls, 

vol.  i.  p.  32. 
(A)   De  Banco  Roll,  No.  5,  m.  7 — Duke's  Transcripts, 

vol.  x-wi.  pp.  141-143. 
()■)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  iv.  pp.   284,  285  ;    Bain, 

Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  38 1. 
(A)   Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  333. 
(/)    Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  362. 
(»»)  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,    1313-1318,  p.   40. 
(n)   Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354- 1360,  p.  169. 
(0)   Assize  Roll,   21   Kdw.   I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 

vol.  xix.  p.  28  ;    De  Banco  Roll,  No.  102, 

m.  i64do — Ibid.  vol.  xxviii.  p.  66. 
(/))  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354-1360,  p.  174. 
(r)    De  Banco  Roll,  No.  5,  m.  4,  No.   7,  m.   11 — 

Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  141-143, 

(s)   Pipe  Rolls,  51   Hen.  III.  and   53  Hen.   HI.— 

Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  pp.  273,  2S2. 
(t)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  viii.  pp.  330,  331. 
(m)  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1349-1354,  p.  173. 
{v)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  ii.  pp.  343-344- 

{w)  Early  .sixteenth  century  document  giving  Koos 

descent — Monasticon,  vol.  v.   pp.  280-281. 

Rievaulx  Chartulary,  (Surtees  Soc.  No.  83), 

pp.  3.59-361. 
(x)   Foundation  Charter  of    Kirkham — Monasticon, 

vol.  vi.  pt.  i.  p.  209  ;    Kirkham  Cartulary, 

p.  21. 
(z)    Pipe  Roll,  22  Hen.  11.— Pipe  Roll  Soc,  vol.  28, 

p.  100. 
{ad)   Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1292-1301,  p.  231. 
(ab)   Assize    Roll,    Divers    Counties,    7-0    Edw.I. — 

Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  p.  123. 
{ac)    Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 

vol.  xviii.  pp.  3-4. 
{ad)  Pipe  Roll,  4  Hen.  II.  (Record  Commissioners 

Publications,  No.  31),  p.  146. 
{ae)   Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 

vol.  xix.  p.  28  ;    De  Banco  Roll,  No.  :o2, 

m.  i64do — Ibid.  vol.  xxviii.  p.  06. 
(a/)    Cal.  of  Inq.  Misc.  vol.  i.  p.  129. 
{ag)    Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  f.  105. 
{ah)   Kirkham  Cartulary,  p.  25. 
{ai)    Ibid.  p.  23. 
{ak)    See  page  36.  «.  5. 
(a/)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  v.  p.  118. 
{am)  Coram   Rege   Roll,    No.    141,    m.    20 — Duke's 

Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  559. 
{an)  Pari.  Writs,  vol.  i.  p.  214. 
{ad)  Chancery  Miscellaneous  Portfolios,  No.  41/195 — 

Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  381. 
{ap)   Cal.  Rot.  Cart.,  p.  326. 

{aq)  Dugdale,   Baronage,  vol.  I.,  p.   545 ;    Nicholas, 
Historic  Peerage  (ed.  Courthope),  p.  404. 

Under  the  circumstances,  it  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  in  1317  Wilham 
Roos  was  induced  to  exchange  Wark,  described  as  tlie  castle  with  its  knight's 
fees,  serjeanties,  homages,  services  of  free  tenants,  villeins  and  their  vil- 
leinages and  all  other  appurtenances  excepting  the  advowsons  of  cells 
pertaining  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham  and  the  hospital  of  Bolton,  for  three 
hundred  marks  of  land  elsewhere.  Security  for  this  money  was  given  by  a 
charge  in  equal  parts  on  the  farms  of  the  cities  of  York  and  Lincoln. ^  For 
a  time  the  custody  of  the  estate  was  kept  in  the  king's  hands  and  administered 

'  Cat.  of  Close  Rolls,  1313-1318,  pp.  569-570;  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1317-1321,  pp.  29,  32;  1321-1324, 
pp.  212-213.  The  original  agreement  provided  for  400  marks  of  land  and  rent,  but  100  marks  of  this  was 
a  yearly  fee  for  serving  the  King  personally.  The  land  valued  at  300  marks  yearly  had  not  been  provided 
when  WiUiam  died  in  1343,  and  the  rent  of  300  marks  secured  on  the  farms  of  the  cities  of  York  and  Lincoln 
formed  part  of  his  estate.  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  viii.  pp.  335,  336.  The  payment  continued  to  be  made 
to  his  heirs  down  to  1377.  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1349-1354.  PP-  248,  332,  426;  1354-1360,  pp.  458,  480,  483, 
53S;    1377-1381.  PP-  i7-"8. 



by  bailiffs.  Thus  the  'custody  of  the  castle  and  barony'  was  confided 
in  1320  to  David  Baxter,  who  was  to  answer  for  the  issues  thereof  to  the 
exchequer/  but  he  died  in  1322, ^  and  was  succeeded  by  Michael  Presfen,- 
appointed  to  keep  'the  manor'  at  the  same  remuneration  as  his  predecessor.^ 
In  1327  the  latter  was  succeeded  by  Roger  Mauduit,'*  who  relinquished  his 
post  in  1329  when  the  manor,  together  with  knight's  fees  and  all  other 
appurtenances  valued  at  £60  15s.  5d.,  was  granted  for  life  to  William  Mon- 
tague in  lieu  of  an  annual  200  marks,  which  the  king  was  bound  to  pay  him 
for  his  contract  of  service  for  life  with  twenty  men-at-arms. °  William 
Montague  was  confirmed  in  this  life  possession  in  1331,  when  he  was  relieved 
of  all  service  therefor  save  the  rent  of  a  red  rose  at  Midsummer,^  and  two 
years  later,  in  consideration  of  his  heavy  expenses  in  restoring  the  castle, 
the  property  was  granted  in  tail  on  William's  death  to  his  younger 
son  John,  to  be  held  of  the  king  by  the  service  of  one  knight's  fee.' 
It  is  obvious  that  William  Montague  was  very  anxious  as  to  the 
legality  of  his  tenure.  In  1334  he  had  the  grant  in  tail  reaffirmed  with  the 
assent  of  parliament,  and  in  the  following  year  he  secured  fresh  letters 
patent  reciting  it,^  not  to  mention  a  special  grant  of  the  market  privileges 
formerly  enjoyed  by  Robert  Roos.^  But  the  claims  of  the  Roos  heiresses 
were  not  put  again  to  the  test  during  his  life  time,  and  he  died  on  January 
30th,  1344,  seised  of  the  castle,  manor  and  borough,  including  a  park,  a  fishery 
in  the  Tweed  and  the  hamlet  of  Learmouth,  all  of  which  were  duly  handed 
on  to  his  son  John.^" 

'  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  iii.  p.  15.    For  identification  of  David  of  Lanton  as  David  Baxter,  see  page  226. 

-  Exchequer  Q.  R.  Memoranda — Bain,  Cal.  0/  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  141  ;  Originalia,  17  Edw.  11. — 
Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  298.     In  the  Originalia  he  is  erroneously  said  to  have  held  Wark  in  capite. 

'  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  iii.  p.  219.  This  appointment  was  made  again  in  1327  [Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  20)  a  few 
days  before  Michael  Presfen  was  finally  superseded.  He  seems  to  have  put  William  Presfen  in  his  place 
and  there  was  some  trouble  over  the  accounts  at  the  end  of  his  term  of  office.  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1327-1330, 
p.  342.  Michael  Presfen's  accounts  during  his  tenure  of  office  are  to  be  found  in  P.K.O.  Ministers'  Accounts, 
Bundle  952,  Nos.  12,  13  and  in  P.R.O.  Enrolled  Accounts,  P.  i,  Edw.  III.  57. 

*  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  24. 

*  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1330-1333,  p.  375  ;  1339-1341,  p.  75  ;  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  129  ;  Cal.  of 
Patent  Rolls,  1327-1330,  pp.  286,  392  ;  Cal.  of  Inq.  Miscellaneous,  vol.  ii.  p.  253.  The  original  grant  \vas 
dated  January  nth,  1328  (Cal,  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  116),  but  for  some  reason  did  not  become  effective. 

«  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  p.  114. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  pp.  462,  463.  The  records  of  the  feudal  aid  of  1346  register  the  fact 
that  the  service  had  been  reduced  from  2i  Knight's  fees  to  one  Knight's  fee.  It  is  evident  from  this 
that  the  term  '  manor  and  Knight's  fees'  is  equivalent  to  the  whole  barony.     Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  66. 

»  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  p.  520  ;    1334-1338,  p.  162. 

'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  320. 

">  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  viii.  pp.  386.  388;     Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1343-1346,  p.  319. 

40  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

Ten  years  later  there  came  the  long  expected  revival  of  the  Roos  claims 
to  Wark.  In  November,  1354,  Jolm  Montague  secured  an  exemplification 
of  the  record  of  the  proceedings  in  parliament  in  1305,^  as  he  had  already  been 
served  with  notice  to  show  cause  why  the  castle  and  manor  should  not  be 
handed  over  to  Gerrard  Salveyn,  son  and  heir  of  Margaret,  daughter  of  Robert 
Roos,  and  heir  also  of  Margaret's  younger  sister  Isabel,  who  had  died  without 
issue.  Salveyn's  claim  was  based  on  the  pardoxi  granted  by  Edward  I.  to  all 
Scots  who  made  their  surrender,  which,  he  averred,  automatically  included 
children  under  age  and  thus  unable  to  take  advantage  of  the  offer,  and  on  the 
fact  that  Edward  II.  had  recognized  the  Roos  claims  and  had  ordered  the 
surrender  of  the  property  to  Margaret  and  Isabel.  The  defence  relied  on 
the  assertion  that  Robert  Roos  had  not  been  a  Scot,  as  the  claimant  asserted, 
but  an  Englishman  born  at  Wark  of  the  king's  allegiance,  and  argued  that  there- 
fore neither  he  himself  nor  his  heirs  were  included  in  the  pardon.  Further  the 
judgment  in  parliament  in  1305  was  put  in,  though  the  plaintiff  asserted 
that  the  pardon  was  issued  after  these  proceedings,  and  that  therefore  the 
right  on  which  he  relied  dated  from  a  time  later  than  this  judgment.  On 
the  whole  the  claimant  had  a  strong  case,  fortified  by  the  order  to  partition 
the  estate  between  the  two  co-heirs  in  1312,  but  it  was  sadly  weakened  by 
the  fact  that  Robert  Roos  was  not  a  Scot  and  that  there  was  no  evidence 
to  prove  that  his  two  daughters  really  came  under  the  provisions  of  the 
general  pardon.  In  any  case,  Gerrard  Salveyn  did  not  appear  to  hear 
judgment  pronounced,  perhaps  because  he  had  reason  to  fear  reprisals.  He 
was  already  in  possession  of  Bellister  and  Plenmeller,  a  part  of  the 
inheritance  secured  doubtless  under  the  award  of  1312,  and  no  sooner  was 
judgment  given  against  him  with  regard  to  Wark,  than  the  crown  insti- 
tuted proceedings  against  him  and  secured  the  confiscation  of  the  two 
townships  as  forfeit  by  the  treason  of  Robert  Roos.^  Thus  the  Montague 
title  was  maintained,  but  the  irrepressible  Gerrard  did  not  give  up  all  hope, 
for  in  1367  he  obtained  an  exemplification  of  the  pardon  granted  to  his 
mother  in  1312.^ 

John  Montague  did  not  live  at  Wark,  but  seems  to  have  divided  his 
time  between  his  home  in  the  parish  of  St.  Clement  Danes,  without  Temple 
Bar,  and  his  country  seat  at  Stokenham,  county  Devon.     In  1365  he  leased 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1354-1358   p.  133.  '  Cal.  of  Close  Kolls,  1354-1360,  pp.  168,  178. 

3  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1364-1367,  p.  411. 


the  castle  and  barony  to  Joan,  widow  of  John  Coupland,  for  a  term  of  seven 
years,  at  an  annual  rent  of  200  marks. ^  Probably  Joan  was  hereby  con- 
firmed in  a  lease  originally  held  by  her  husband,  who  certainly  lived  at  Wark 
and  made  his  will  there  on  October  nth,  1359.^  She  was  a  large  landowner 
in  Glendale,  and  in  addition  to  the  above  lease  she  seems  to  have  owned 
some  small  holding  in  the  township  confirmed  to  her  by  fine  in  1365.^  In 
1374  another  tenant  was  found  in  the  person  of  William  Swinburne,  to  whom 
the  castle  and  barony  was  then  transferred,*  but  when  John  Montague  died 
in  1370,  the  property  was  worth  nothing  as  it  had  been  destroyed  by  war. 
His  son  John,  aged  39  or  more,  succeeded  his  father,^  and  when  his  mother 
Margaret's  dower  fell  in  five  years  later,  things  had  improved  so  far  as  to  allow 
the  annual  value  of  the  whole  estate  to  be  estimated  at  200s.,®  though  this  still 
fell  far  short  of  the  200  marks  for  which  it  had  been  let  in  1365.  This  John 
Montague  was  no  more  interested  than  his  father  in  his  Northumbrian 
property,  and  in  1397  he  exchanged  it  for  other  lands  not  specified.  The 
new  owner  was  Ralph  Neville,^  created  earl  of  Westmorland  later  that  same 
year,  and  he  in  turn  effected  an  exchange  in  1398  with  Sir  Thomas  Grey  of 
Heton  who  thus  acquired  a  property  which  was  to  continue  in  his  line  for 
many  generations.^  The  new  owner  died  in  November,  1400,  the  castle 
and  manor  having  previously  been  settled  on  himself  and  Joan  his  wife 
and  the  heirs  of  their  bodies,  with  successive  remainders  to  the  heirs  of  his 
body  and  his  right  heirs.  Joan  survived  him,  and  at  her  death  the  pro- 
perty went  to  their  son  Thomas,^  who  was  under  age  and  a  ward  of  the  crown 
and  only  secured  his  inheritance  in  1407  after  special  inquiry  had  revealed 
that  he  was  twenty-two.^"  This  Thomas  Grey  of  Heton,  baron  of  the  barony 
of  Wark  as  he  is  termed  in  an  indult  to  have  a  portable  altar,^^  was  brought 
into  close  relations  with  the  royal  house  of  York,  and  in  141 2  was  given 
by  Edward,  duke  of  York,  the  lordship  of  Wark  in  Tynedale,  which  in 

>  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1364-1368,  p.  183.  '  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  31. 

'  Pedes  Finiitm,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276.      Cf.  Cal.  of  Patent 
Rolls,  1367-1370,  p.  39. 

*  Dodsworth  MS.  45,  fol.  49. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  13  Ric.  II.  No.  34 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  205-207. 

^  Inq.  p.m.  18  Ric.  II.  No.  31 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  297-298. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls.  1396-1399,  p.  410.  '  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1396-1399.  P-  4io- 

^  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,   1401-1405,  p.   182;    Inq.  p.m.    2  Hen.   IV.    No.  50 — Scalacronica.  Proofs   and 
Illustrations,  pp.  lix.-lx. 

"  Inq.  p.m.  8  Hen.  IV.  No.  87 — Scalacrouica,  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  pp.  Ixi.-lxiii. 
'1  Cal.  of  Papal  Letters,  vol.  vi.  p.  145. 

Vol.  XI.  6 

42  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

default  of  children  born  to  the  duke,  of  which  there  were  no  signs,  would 
have  gone  to  his  brother  Richard  of  Conisburgh.  As  the  gift  pro- 
vided that  on  Thomas  Grey's  death  his  property  should  remain  to  his 
eldest  son  Thomas  and  Isabel,  the  daughter  of  the  said  Richard,  and  the 
heirs  of  their  bodies,  and  in  default  to  the  duke  and  the  heirs  male  of  his 
body,^  it  may  well  be  taken  to  have  been  Isabel's  marriage  portion,  granted 
by  her  uncle  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  would  in  all  probability  die  childless. 
Thus  Thomas,  the  elder,  was  lord  of  both  Warks  by  virtue  of  his  connection 
with  Richard  of  Conisburgh,  who  in  1414  was  created  earl  of  Cambridge, 
and  this  explains  why  he  abandoned  the  Lancastrian  traditions  of  his  father, 
who  had  helped  Henry  IV.  to  gain  his  crown, ^  and  in  1415  took  part  in  the 
conspiracy  against  Henry  V.  which  cost  him  his  life.  According  to  his 
own  account  he  was  led  into  it  by  others,  particularly  by  one  Lucy,  a  retainer 
of  the  earl  of  March. ^  On  the  other  hand  his  fellow  conspirator.  Lord  Scrope 
of  Masham,  declared  that  it  was  Grey  who  had  drawn  him  into  it.*  A 
special  commission  appointed  to  try  the  accused  remanded  Cambridge  and 
Scrope  for  trial  by  their  peers,  but  found  Grey  guilty  and  sentenced  him  to 
be  drawn,  hung  and  executed.  The  drawing  and  hanging  were  remitted, 
and  he  walked  publicly  aftd  on  foot  from  the  Watergate  of  Southampton 
through  the  midst  of  the  town  to  the  Northgate,  and  was  there  decapitated, 
his  head  being  sent  for  exposition  at  Newcastle-upon-Tyne.^ 

By  the  time  that  the  Feudal  Aid  of  1428  came  to  be  collected,  Sir  Ralph 
Grey,  eldest  surviving  son  and  heir  of  the  executed  Thomas,  then  about  25,® 
had  been  restored  to  his  patrimony,  and  was  said  to  hold  Wark,  Learmouth 
and  Presson  for  a  moiety  of  a  knight's  fee."  He  died  in  March,  1443,  when  he 
held  the  castle,  manor  and  township  of  Wark  in  fee  tail  by  the  fourth  part 
of  one  knight's  fee,  his  son  Ralph,  said  to  be  aged  about  14  or  16,  being  his 
heir.^  The  latter  was  swept  into  the  struggles  of  the  Wars  of  the  Roses, 
and  true  to  his  traditions  first  appeared  on  the  Yorkist  side.  When  his  party 
for  the  time  seemed  dissolved  in  1460  after  the  defeat  at  Ludlow,  he  secured 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1408-1413,  p.  399.  -  Cat.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1399-1401,  p.  287 

'  See  his  letters  begging  for  mercy  addressed  to  Henry  V.     They  are  so  badly  faded  and  mutilated 
that  their  meaning  is  hard  to  decipher.     They  are  printed  in  Dep.  Keeper's  Rep.  No.  xliii.  App.  i.  pp.  582-588. 

*  Rot.  Pari.  vol.  iv.  p.  66.  '  Rot.  Pari.  vol.  iv.  pp.  65-66. 

*  Durham  Cursitor  Records— De/).  Keeper's  Rep.  vol.  xlv.  App.  i.  pp.  207-209. 

'  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  86. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  File  iii. ;  Durham  Cursitor  Records — Dep.  Keeper's  Rep.  No.  xliv. 
App.  p.  398. 


a  free  pardon  from  the  triumphant  Lancastrians, ^  but  in  1462  he  assisted 
at  the  reduction  of  Alnwick  by  the  Yorkists  under  lord  Hastings,  and  as  a 
reward  was  made  constable  of  that  fortress.^  None  the  less,  in  the  following 
year  he  deserted  Edward  IV.,  partly  perhaps  because  he  found  himself 
only  second  in  command  at  Alnwick.  He  seized  Sir  John  Ashley,  his 
superior  ofticer,  and  betrayed  the  castle  to  the  Lancastrians.^  It  seemed 
as  though  the  tide  was  turning  against  the  Yorkists  in  Northumberland, 
but  their  victories  at  Hedgeley  Moor  and  at  the  Linnels  near  Hexham  in  the 
spring  of  1464  changed  the  whole  aspect  of  the  struggle.  Sir  Ralph  Grey 
had  escaped  from  the  Linnels  before  the  battle,*  for  Edward  IV.  had  refused 
to  forgive  his  treachery,  and  in  an  offer  of  pardon  to  aU  who  made  their  sub- 
mission, had  definitely  excepted  him  together  with  Humphrey  Neville.^  In 
Bamburgh  he  made  his  last  stand  against  the  Yorkists,  who  were  under  the 
command  of  Warwick.  The  artillery  of  the  besiegers  was  too  much  for 
the  old  castle,  and  when  Sir  Ralph  had  been  wounded,  the  garrison  agreed  to 
surrender.  '  That  fals  traytur, '  as  the  strongly  Yorkist  chronicler  called  him, 
was  taken  to  the  king  at  Pontefract,  and  thence  to  Doncaster,  where  he  was 

According  to  the  inquest  taken  after  the  death  of  Sir  Ralph  Grey,  the 
castle,  lordship  and  manor  were  together  worth  £20  a  year  and  no  more, 
because  of  the  sterility  of  the  country  and  the  destruction  of  the  Scots, 
though  in  this  there  was  not  included  certain  lands  in  the  "  esthowght"  of 
Wark,  which  had  been  his  mother's  dowry  and  which  at  her  death  he  had 
let  off  for  a  term  of  years.  His  heir  was  his  son  Thomas,  aged  8,^  and  there 
is  no  indication  of  forfeiture.  The  widow  was  allowed  to  enter  on  such 
estates  as  she  had  held  jointly  with  her  husband,  though  this  did  not 
include  Wark,^  and  Thomas  Grey  was  certainly  in  possession  of  the  barony 
in  1480.^  The  latter  must  have  died  before  1499,  for  on  October  14th  of 
that  year  his  son  and  heir,  Ralph,  was  given  licence  to  enter  on  all  his  other 
possessions  without  proof  of  age.^° 

From  this  time  forward  the  property  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
Greys.^^    Sir  William  Grey,  when  created  a  peer  in  1624,  took  the  title  of  Lord 

»  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls.  1452-1461,  p.  575.  '  W.  of  Worcester,  p.  779. 

»  Ibid.  pp.  781-782  ;   Gregory,  p.  220.  ♦  W.  of  Worcester,  p.  782.  '  Foedtra,  vol.  xi.  p.  527. 

«  CoUege  of  Arms  MS.  L.  9 — Warkworth,  pp.  36-39;  W.  of  Worcester,  pp.  782-783 ;     Gregor)-,  p.  227. 
'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Edw.  IV.  File  17.  *  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1461-1467,  p.  388. 

•  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Edw.  IV.  File  75.  "  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1494-1509,  p.  191. 

"  See  Grey  Pedigree  in  Raine,  North  Durham,  pp.  326-327. 

44  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

Grey  of  Wark,  but  none  the  less  was  found  on  the  parhamentary  side  during 
the  Civil  War.  He  suffered  no  confiscation  at  the  Restoration,  and  his  grand- 
son, Ford,  Lord  Grey,  was  created  viscount  Glendale  and  earl  of  Tankerville 
in  1695.^  The  latter's  only  child,  Mary,  succeeded  to  a  portion  of  her  father's 
inheritance,  including  Wark,^  and  her  husband,  Charles  Bennet,  baron 
Ossulston,  was  in  1714  created  earl  of  Tankerville.  The  property  continued 
with  their  descendants,  though  in  1913  the  site  of  the  castle  with 
the  manorial  rights,  Wark  Farm  and  Wark  Common  Farm,  were  offered 
for  sale  by  auction  but  withdrawn.^  Wark  Common  Farm  was  that  portion 
of  the  common  allotted  to  the  earl  of  Tankerville  under  the  enclosure  act 
of  1799,  and  is  separated  from  Wark  by  Sunnilaws,  though  it  ranks  as  part 
of  Wark  township.  This  was  sold  in  May,  192 1,  to  Mrs.  Cayley,  the 
proprietor  of  Carham,  and  Wark  itself,  with  the  exception  of  such  parts  of 
it  as  are  owned  by  small  freeholders,  was  sold  in  1920  to  Captain  Samman 
of  Willoughby  Manor,  near  Hull. 


"  Auld  Wark  upon  the  Tweed 
Has  been  many  a  man's  dead."  * 

may  not  be  poetry  of  a  high  order,  judged  even  by  the  standards  of 
other  folk  doggrel,  but  it  is  none  the  less  a  true  description  of  the 
history  of  Wark  for  at  least  five  centuries.  Now  a  grass  covered  mound, 
crowned  by  the  massive  masonry  which  formed  the  base  of  the 
shell  keep,  is  all  that  remains  of  a  once  redoubtable  castle,  which 
in  its  day  frowned  at  the  Scottish  army  across  the  Tweed,  withstood 
many  an  onslaught,  and  more  than  once  fell  victim  to  the  invading  forces 
of  the  enemy.  It  was  doubtless  the  fact  that  at  this  point  the  river  was 
fordable,  that  led  to  the  erection  of  the  castle,  and  the  first  we  hear  of  such  a 
fortification  is  during  the  anarchic  days  of  King  Stephen,  when  David, 
king  of  Scotland,  took  a  delight  in  invading  Northumberland,  nominally  as 

»  Privy  Seal  Docket — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xxiv.  p.  222;  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1684-1695, 
P-  331- 

^  In  1730  Horsley  (Inedited  Contributions  to  the  History  of  Northumberland,  p.  56).  wrote  'the  estate  of 
Wark  now  belongs  to  Henry  Grey  Neville  esquire,  having  been  left  him  and  a  great  deal  more  by  the  last 
Lord  Grey.'  This  would  mean  Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  brother  of  Ford,  earl  of  Tankerville,  who  divided  the 
inheritance  with  his  niece,  Marj'.  No  trace  of  Wark  being  owned  by  Ralph.  Lord  Grey,  can  be  found 
among  the  deeds,  but  it  is  possible  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  title  was  Grey  of  Wark.  If  so,  the  Tanker- 
villes  must  have  bought  from  the  Greys  of  Howick,  to  whom  the  inheritance  passed  from  Henry  Neville. 

'  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xxii.  pp.  305-306.  '  Denham  Tracts,  vol.  i.  p.  343. 

WARK    CASTLE.  45 

the  supporter  of  his  niece  Matilda's  claim  to  the  English  throne.  His  first 
incursion  was  in  1126,  when  he  seized  '  Carham  which  by  the  English  is  called 
Wark,'  and  only  surrendered  it  when  Stephen  came  north  and  offered  the 
earldom  of  Huntingdon  together  with  Carlisle  and  Doncaster  to  the  Scottish 
king's  son  Henry.  The  chronicler,  in  narrating  these  events,  speaks  of  Wark 
both  as  a  town  and  as  a  castle,^  and  his  description  of  the  place  as  'Carham 
called  Wark'  provokes  the  surmise  that  the  fortification  was  of  recent 
date.  Whether  new  or  old,  the  fortress  was  sufficiently  strong  to  prove  a 
serious  stumbling  block  to  King  David's  ambitions,  when  in  1138  he  strove 
to  win  the  earldom  of  Northumberland  from  the  English  king.  Three 
times  that  year  did  he  lay  formal  siege  to  the  place,  and  in  the 
end  he  only  captured  it  by  means  of  starvation.  On  January 
loth  his  nephew,  William  Fitz-Duncan,  attacked  at  dawn  in  a  vain 
attempt  to  take  it  by  storm,  and  a  three  weeks  siege  laid  by  the 
king  in  person,  and  supported  by  a  variety  of  siege  engines,  failed  to 
reduce  the  garrison,  gallantly  led  by  Jordan  Bussey,  nephew  of 
the  owner,  Walter  Espec.  The  Scottish  king,  despairing  of  success, 
and  wrathful  at  the  number  of  his  casualties  which  included  his 
standard  bearer,  abandoned  the  enterprise,  and  went  off  to  ravage  North- 
umberland.- Stephen,  as  yet  unhampered  by  rebellion  at  home,  advanced 
in  February  against  the  enemy,  driving  him  back  across  the  border  and 
using  Wark  as  a  base  from  which  to  lead  a  not  too  successful  foray  into 
Scotland  by  way  of  retaliation.^  But  when  complications  nearer  home 
had  called  the  English  king  southwards,  the  Scots  re-entered  England  after 
Easter,  bent  on  serious  conquest.  At  the  very  beginning  of  their  campaign 
they  found  Wark  a  thorn  in  their  side,  for  the  garrison  seized  one  of  their 
supply  trains,  and  even  cut  up  the  personal  escort  of  David's  son,  Henry. 
For  the  time  the  only  thing  to  be  done  was  to  mask  the  fortress,  care  being 
taken  to  ravage  the  whole  country  side  so  that  no  provisions  could  be 
secured  by  its  defenders,*  but  the  siege  was  renewed  in  earnest  after  the 
Scottish  king  had  been  defeated,  though  not  routed,  at  the  Battle  of  the 
Standard.     Once  more  a  siege  train  failed  to  reduce  the  fortress,  and  the 

'  'Opidum'  and  'castellum,'  Richard  of  He-xham,  pp.  145-146. 
^  Richard  of  Hexham,  p.  151 ;  John  of  Hexham,  p.  289. 
»  Richard  of  Hexham,  p.  155;  John  of  He-xham,  p.  290. 

*  Richard  of  Hexham,  pp.  157-158.     The  account  of  John  of  Hexham,  pp.  291,  292,  is  very  confused  ai 
to  chronology. 

46  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

besiegers  suffered  considerably  at  the  hands  of  sallying  parties  without 
reducing  the  number  of  the  garrison,  only  one  of  which  was  captured 
through  delaying  too  long  in  the  endeavour  to  destroy  one  of  the  siege  engines 
during  an  otherwise  successful  sortie.  But  relief  from  England  was  out  of 
the  question,  and  David  determined  to  starve  the  place  out.  By  the  end 
of  September  provisions  were  running  very  short,  for  though  a  truce  had 
been  arranged,  the  siege  of  Wark  was  specifically  excepted  from  its  opera- 
tions. All  the  horses  in  the  castle  had  been  killed  and  salted,  and  most 
of  them  had  been  consumed,  but  the  spirit  of  the  besieged  was  such  that 
they  were  contemplating  an  attempt  to  cut  their  way  through  the  investing 
force,  when  the  abbot  of  Rievaulx  arrived  with  instructions  from  Walter 
Espec  to  negotiate  a  surrender.  David  allowed  the  brave  defenders  to 
march  out  with  the  honours  of  war,  assisting  them  in  their  departure  by  the 
gift  of  24  horses.     The  castle  he  razed  to  the  ground.^ 

Walter  Espec  probably  never  saw  his  castle  or  its  site  again,  for  he 
died  in  1153  while  the  Scots  still  held  northern  England.  After  Henry  II. 
had  forced  Malcolm  IV.  to  surrender  his  grandfather's  gains,  it  would  seem  that 
this  important  border  place  was  kept  in  the  king's  hands,  at  any  rate  the 
royal  accounts  show  that  £377  14s.  iid.  was  spent  on  building  operations 
there  between  1158  and  1161,-  and  the  Melrose  chronicler  records  that  in 
1 158  the  castle  of  Wark  was  fortified  once  again. ^  Doubtless  it  still 
remained  in  the  king's  hands,  for  when  we  next  hear  of  it,  the  sheriff  of  the 
county,  one  Roger  Stuteville,  was  in  command.  This  was  in  1173,  when 
Henry  II.  was  faced  with  feudal  rebellion  in  England  working  in  conjunction 
with  his  enemies  of  France  and  Scotland.  William  the  Lion,  having  deter- 
mined on  an  invasion,  advanced  on  Wark,  once  more  the  guardian  of  the 
border :  '  let  us  go  take  the  castle  of  Wark  in  England '  was  the  universal 
Scottish  cry.  The  castellan  went  out  to  meet  the  Scottish  king  as  he 
approached,  and  conscious  of  the  weakness  of  his  force,  begged  for  forty 
days  truce,  so  that  he  might  communicate  with  King  Henry  overseas  and  show 
him  that  'it  was  no  time  for  song  or  laughter,'  but  that  he  must  provide 
reinforcements  if  the  castle  and  the  north  were  to  be  saved.  Sure  of  his 
strength,  says  the  chronicler,  William  agreed  to  this  proposal,^  but  he  had 

•  Richard  of  Hexham,  pp.  165-166,  170,  171-172;  John  of  Hexham,  pp.  291-292. 

»  Pipe  Rolls,   4,  5,  6.   7  Hen.  II. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  2-5.      C/.  Bain,  Cal.  0/  Documents,  vol.  i. 
pp.  9-10. 

'  Chron.  de  Mailros,  p.  76.  'Jordan  Fantosme  (Rolls  Series),  pp.  242-248. 

WARK    CASTLE.  47 

really  no  option,  as  he  was  compelled  to  fall  back  before  the  royal  forces 
under  the  justiciar,  Richard  Lucy,  who  managed  to  carry  the  war  some 
way  into  Scotland.  That  Wark  was  promptly  put  into  a  position  to  with- 
stand a  siege  is  obvious  from  Roger  Stuteville's  accounts  as  sheriff  for  the 
year  1174,  wherein  there  is  mention  of  48  chaldrons  of  oatmeal,  costing 
£19  4s.  od.,  and  53  chaldrons  of  malt,  costing  £10  12s.  od.,  provided 
for  Wark,  not  to  mention  £41  paid  in  wages  to  ten  knights  and  forty  squires 
garrisoning  the  castle.  A  further  £5  was  accounted  for  as  spent  on  the 
king's  knights  there. ^  Thus  when  in  1174  the  Scottish  king  invaded 
Northumberland  once  more,  he  found  Wark  well  defended,  and  so  passed  on, 
and  only  took  up  the  siege  seriously  after  he  had  been  compelled  to  retreat 
before  the  local  forces  of  Yorkshire  and  Lancashire  advancing  to  meet 
him. 2  On  this  occasion  the  attack  was  sharp  and  short.  The  intrepid 
castellan  had  his  men  well  in  hand,  and  bade  them  spare  their  arrows  and 
economize  their  food  as  their  enemy  had  splendid  supplies,  good  roads  of  com- 
munication and  plenty  of  war  material.  The  attacking  forces  were  largely 
Flemish  mercenaries,  and  they  hurled  themselves  en  masse  against  the 
main  entrance,  seeking,  it  seems,  to  overpower  the  defence  by  sheer 
numbers.  Their  bravery  was  astounding  and  carried  them  across 
the  moat,  but  their  losses  were  such  that  they  had  to  retire.  William 
then  brought  up  his  siege  engines,  a  course  which  a  more  prudent  com- 
mander would  have  followed  earlier,  but  here  again  failure  dogged  his 
every  endeavour,  and  the  first  stone  hurled  from  the  sling  fell  short 
and  only  resulted  in  putting  out  of  action  a  Scottish  knight,  who  was 
in  the  line  of  fire  and  would  have  been  killed  had  he  not  been 
wearing  very  heavy  armour — 'a  costly  performance  indeed'  as  the 
Scottish  king  declared.  Other  engines  were  no  more  successful,  and  an 
attempt  to  burn  the  castle  was  frustrated  by  the  wind.  Since  speed  was 
necessary  for  success,  as  the  Scottish  position  in  Northumberland  was  by 
no  means  secure,  these  failures  compelled  the  abandonment  of  the  siege. ^ 
The  castle  seems  to  have  continued  in  the  king's  hands  throughout  the 
reigns  of  Henry  IL  and  Richard  L,  for  in  1199  12  marks  were  expended  from 

1  Pipe  Roll,  20  Hen.  II. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  21.  Cf.  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  18. 
The  chronicler  states  that  in  the  subsequent  siege  the  captain  had  20  knights  under  his  command.  (Jordan 
Fantosme,  p.  304),  which  agrees  roughly  with  these  accounts. 

"  This  seems  to  explain  the  obvious  suspension  of  the  siege  in  Jordan  Fantosme,  pp.  300-302. 

3  Jordan  Fantosme,  pp. 302-313.  Chron.  de  Mailros,  p.  86,  says  merely  that  King  William  laid  siege 
to  Wark  and  lingered  there  for  some  time  without  making  any  progress. 

48  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

national  sources  in  strengthening  it,^  though  Robert  Roos  was  probably 
in  possession  of  the  barony. ^  The  latter  was  finally  confirmed  as  owner  both 
of  the  barony  and  castle  in  1200,*  though  he  lost  them  for  a  brief  period  in 
1216,  when  King  John  marched  against  his  recalcitrant  barons.  The 
owner  of  Wark  had  been  one  of  the  executors  of  Magna  Carta,'*  and  he 
must  have  joined  the  other  northern  lords  in  agreeing  to  surrender  North- 
umberland to  the  Scottish  king,  when  it  became  evident  that  only  force  of 
arms  would  make  King  John  keep  his  word.  Doubtless,  too,  he  was  among 
those  who  fled  before  the  avenging  arm  of  the  English  king  as  he  advanced 
to  the  north,  ravaging  as  he  went,  for  we  know  that  on  January  nth, 
1216,  Wark  was  burnt  to  the  ground.^  Evidently  the  castle  was  rebuilt 
soon  after,  though  the  owner  did  not  reside  there,  and  placed  one  Robert 
Cargho  in  command  as  castellan.^ 

The  strategic  importance  of  Wark  is  illustrated  as  much  by  the  con- 
sistent desire  of  the  English  kings  to  have  it  under  their  direct  control,  as 
by  the  frequent  attempts  of  the  Scots  to  capture  it.  Probably  it  had  been 
John's  well  known  carelessness  in  these  matters  that  had  confirmed  it  to  the 
Roos  family,  and  his  successor  tried  to  get  it  back  into  royal  hands.  He 
was  already  trying  to  achieve  this  end  when  in  1255  he  obtained  the  loan 
of  the  castle  from  Robert  Roos,'  as  he  wished  to  use  it  as  a  base  from  which 
he  could  take  a  hand  in  the  obscure  political  wrangling  then  going  on  in 
Scotland.  He  had  already  sent  the  earl  of  Gloucester  to  assist  the  party  of 
Alan  Durward,  which  had  managed  by  a  coup  d'etat  to  seize  the  boy  king 
Alexander  and  his  wife  Margaret,  the  English  king's  daughter,  and  assume 
the  control  of  the  government.  He  now  came  in  person  to  Wark,^  where 
he  arranged  a  conference  with  Alexander,  giving  an  elaborate  safe  conduct 
to  those  of  the  Scottish  side,  and  promising  that  they  should  not  be  detained 
in  England  against  their  will.^  None  the  less,  after  the  conference  had  been 
held,  the  queen  of  Scots  remained  behind  with  her  mother  who  had  fallen 
ill,  much  to  the  disgust  of  the  Scottish  nobles,  who  extracted  from  Henry 

'  Pipe  Roll,  I  John — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii,  pp.  65-66.     Cf.  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  45. 
2  See  page  32.  «  Cal.  Rot.  Cart.  p.  326.  *  Matthew  Paris,  vol.  ii.  p.  605. 

'  Chron.  de  Mailros,  p.  122.  '  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls,  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  115. 

'  Cal.  oj  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258,  p.  423,  cf.  p.  473. 

*  Chron.  de  Mailros,  p.  181.  He  had  arrived  by  September  ist.  (Letter  dated  at  Wark,  September  ist. 
Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258,  p.  430).  A  charter  was  dated  there  on  September  7th  {Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls, 
vol.  i.  p.  449).  as  he  was  on  a  visit  to  Chilhngham  on  September  5th  {Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258, 
p.  424),  he  probably  returned  to  Wark  oi;  the  6tli. 

•  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258,  p.  424. 













WARK    CASTLE.  49 

a  promise  to  send  his  daughter  back  so  soon  as  his  wife  was  sufficiently 
recovered  to  return  South. ^  The  castle  was  restored  to  Robert  Roos  in 
May  1256,2  though  eight  of  the  king's  foot-sergeants'  were  paid  for  dwell- 
ing at  Wark  till  June  nth.'*  Two  years  later  Henry  again  borrowed  the 
castle,^  to  be  used  as  a  refuge  for  the  English  party  at  the  Scottish 
court,  which  had  been  overthrown  by  its  opponents,  and  wanted 
a  border  stronghold  from  which  to  plan  its  restoration  to  power. 
Alan  Durward  was  to  be  received  in  Norham  and  Walter  Moray  in 
Wark,  careful  provision  being  made  that  they  should  not  be  admitted 
to  either  the  keep  or  the  inner  bailey,  which  in  the  latter  case  was  to 
be    left    in    the    hands    of   Robert    Roos.^ 

Prominently  though  Wark  had  figured  hitherto  in  the  relations  of 
England  and  Scotland,  it  was  to  play  an  even  more  important  part  during 
the  reign  of  Edward  I.,  whose  aggressive  policy  towards  his  northern  neigh- 
bours made  the  border  fortresses  places  of  great  military  interest.  Before 
trouble  arose  Edward  had  paid  his  first  visit  to  Wark  in  1292,  after  he  had 
presided  at  Berwick-upon-Tweed  over  the  solemn  adjudication  of  the  throne 
of  Scotland  to  John  Balliol.  He  arrived  there  on  Thursday,  November  20th, 
and  on  the  following  day  his  household  accounts  show  a  disbursement  of 
£21  4s.  5d.  He  seems  to  have  remained  there  till  the  26th,'  when  he  went 
on  to  Roxburgh,^  but  on  his  way  south  he  lay  once  more  at  the  castle  on 
December  12th,  when  his  expenses  amounted  to  £24  2S  ijd.^  Within  four 
years  he  was  back  again,  but  on  this  occasion  he  had  abandoned  the  role  of 
judge  for  that  of  military  commander.  The  war  with  the  Scots  had  begun. 
The  owner  of  Wark  had  opened  negotiations  with  the  enemy,  and  only  the 
exertions  of  his  uncle,  William  Roos,  saved  the  castle  from  falling  into 
Scottish  hands. 1°  It  was  to  Wark  that  Edward  proceeded  at  the  opening 
of  the  campaign,  spending  Easter  there  before  advancing  into  Scotland," 

•  Chron.  de  Mailros,  p.  i8i ;  Cal.  o)  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258,  p.  425. 

"  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258,  p.  473.  '  Servientes  pedites. 

«  They  were  paid  at  the  rates  of  2d.  a  day.      Pipe  Roll,  40  Hen.  Ill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  232 . 

'  Cal.  0}  Patent  Rolls,  1247-1258,  p.  621. 

'  Close  Roll,  42  Hen.  HI.  ra.  lodo — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  413. 

'  Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  369.  '  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1288-1296,  pp.  276,  308. 

'  Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  370. 

"  Chancery  Miscellanea,  Portfolio.  No.  tVs — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  381  For  the  details  of 
Robert  Roos's  treachery,  see  page  35. 

"  Lanercost,  p.  176;  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  p.  94.  He  was  at  Wark  from  March  17th  to  March  28th.  Cal. 
of  Close  Rolls,  1288-1296,  pp.  476,  510;  P.R.O.  Ancient  Correspondence,  vol.  45,  No.  74.  Easter  day  fell  on 
March  25th  in  1296. 

Vol.  XI.  7 

50  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

and  for  the  time  being  Osbert  Spaldington  was  put  in  command  as  repre- 
sentative of  the  new  owner,  WiUiam  Roos.^  Still,  it  was  obviously  provided 
with  munitions  by  the  king,  who  in  1297  ordered  all  his  ballistae,  quarrels 
and  other  things  that  were  'in  the  munition  of  the  castle  of  Wark  and  in 
Osbert's  custody'  to  be  taken  to  Berwick,^  and  it  was  frequently  under  the 
direct  control  of  the  government  during  the  Scottish  wars.  On  his  way 
back  from  the  Falkirk  campaign  Edward  lay  there  for  one  night, ^  and  in 
1300  he  borrowed  it  together  with  its  munitions  for  a  year  'for  the  safety 
of  the  March,'  provision  being  made  for  the  owner's  sergeant  to  remain  there 
to  protect  his  master's  armour  and  other  property.*  The  castle  itself 
was  placed  under  the  control  of  Robert  FitzRoger,  who  was  in  command 
of  the  king's  forces  in  Northumberland.^ 

Wark  figured  fairly  frequently  in  the  disastrous  border  history  of  the 
reign  of  Edward  II.  When  in  1309  this  ineffective  monarch  sought  to  dis- 
tract attention  from  the  hated  Gaveston  by  a  campaign  against  the  ever 
increasing  power  of  Robert  Bruce,  he  could  not  make  up  his  mind  as  to  the 
meeting  place  for  his  army,  and  having  altered  the  venue  from  Berwick  to 
Wark,  he  later  determined  on  two  attacks,  one  from  Berwick  and  the  other 
from  Carlisle.^  In  the  end,  the  campaign  never  took  place,  but  in  September, 
1310,  Edward  did  manage  to  reach  Wark  '  on  an  expedition  against  Bruce, 
which  achieved  nothing,  save  that  he  was  enabled  to  winter  in  Berwick,  far 
from  baronial  opposition,  with  Earl  Warenne  guarding  the  border  at  Wark.^ 
In  1314  the  castle  witnessed  the  passing  of  at  least  a  portion  of  that  motley 
array  which  Edward  led  to  defeat  at  Bannockburn,^  and  after  that  disaster 
Sir  Edward  Darel  was  made  constable  of  the  fortress. i"  In  1315  the  king's 
favourite,  Henry  Beaumont,  brother  of  the  unlearned  Lewis  Beaumont 
appointed  three  years  later  to  the  see  of  Durham,  contemplated  the  use  of 
the  castle  as  a  base  for  attacking  the  advancing  Scots,"  and  in  the  following 
year  Sir  William  Roos,  having  recently  succeeded  to  the  castle  and  manor, 

•  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  t.  p.  31.  -  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1298- 1302,  p.  11. 

'  October  19th,  1298.     Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  408  ;  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1296-1302,  pp.  161,  182,  183. 
'  Exchequer  Q.  R.  Memoranda,  29  Edw.  I.  m.  60 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  295;    Cal.  of  Patent 
Rolls,  1292-1301,  p.  538. 

'  Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  411. 
'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1307-1313,  p.  231;  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  pp.  73-77. 
'  He  was  at  Wark  on  September  15th,  1310.     Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  103. 
'  Chancery  Miscellanea,  Portfolio,  No.  1 1 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  33. 

'  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm,  vol.  ii.  pp.1003-1004.  '°  Issues  of  the  Exchequer,  Hen.  IH. — Hen. VI.  p.  127. 

"  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  150. 


undertook  to  keep  the  castle  and  the  country  round  with  30  men-at-arms 
and  40  hobelers  from  the  ist  December  to  Midsummer  following,  or  a  whole 
year  if  need  be,  twelve  of  the  former  at  his  own  cost,  and  the  remainder  at 
the  king's,  the  rate  of  payment  for  a  man-at-arms  being  lad.  and  for  a 
hobeler  4d.  daily.  Sir  William  also  agreed  to  another  contract,  whereby 
he  undertook  to  serve  for  the  same  period  on  the  Scottish  march  with  50  men- 
at-arms  of  his  own  retinue  for  a  fee  of  £1,000.  As  was  usual  the  king  bore 
the  expense  of  all  the  horses  lost  in  his  service,  and  in  the  following  May 
ten  marks  were  awarded  to  Sir  William  as  compensation  for  the  loss  of  his 
'white  laird  horse,'  killed  in  a  foray  near  Jedburgh  in  company  of  the  lord 
warden.  The  contract  was  thus  duly  performed,  though  sometimes  more 
and  sometimes  fewer  men  were  mustered,  and  indeed  Sir  William  served 
for  a  month  longer  than  the  stipulated  period.^  But  the  experiment  of 
retaining  a  man  to  defend  his  own  castle  evidently  did  not  prove  a  success. 
Wark  was  indeed  in  time  of  war  practically  a  royal  castle,  and  in  November 
1317  it  became  so  in  theory  as  well  as  fact,  when  its  owner  surrendered 
both  castle  and  barony  into  the  king's  hands  in  return  for  the  promise  of 
other  lands.- 

From  13 17  to  1329  Wark  castle  was  in  the  charge  of  a  series  of  bailiffs 
appointed  to  keep  the  barony  as  a  whole, ^  but  though  steps  were  taken  to 
provide  it  with  supplies,*  it  was  compelled  by  famine  to  surrender  to  the  Scots 
in  1318,  as  no  relief  arrived  to  raise  the  siege. ^  Apparently  it  did  not  remain 
long  in  enemy  hands,  but  little  care  was  taken  of  it  after  recovery,  and 
one  constable  at  least  was  allowed  to  die  without  payment  of  his  dues,  which 
his  widow  only  secured  at  the  beginning  of  the  following  reign  ;^  another 
had  to  be  forgiven  a  debt  to  the  crown,  since  all  the  dues  he  had  collected 
had  been  carried  off  in  a  successful  raid  on  the  castle.'  So  unsuccessful  was 
this  administration  by  bailiffs,  that  soon  the  king  took  to  appointing  a  con- 
stable quite  independent  of  the  civil  official.  Thus  in  1326  John  Clavering, 
who  held  that  ofhce,  was  ordered  to  see  to  the  munitioning  of  his  charge 
and  to  report  the  number  of  his  garrison,  since  certain  unruly  Scots  were 

'  Exchequer  K.  R.  Miscellanea  (Army)  No.  ?| — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  iii.     Cf.  Rot.  Scot. 
vol.  i.  p.  167. 

»  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1313-1318,  pp.  569-570.     Cf  page  38.  '  See  page  39. 

*  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1313-1318,  p.  506.  '  Lanercost,  p.  235. 

«  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1327-1330,  pp.  55,  60  ;    1333-1337,  p.  49« 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1327-1330.  p.  342;  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  174. 

52  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

threatening  the  border  fortresses  in  defiance  of  the  truce.  He  was  further 
ordered  'to  go  in  person  to  the  said  castle,  there  to  remain  for  the  defence  of 
those  parts,  so  conducting  himself  in  this  behalf  that  it  may  not  behove 
the  king  to  take  the  castle  into  his  own  hands  and  to  provide  for  its  custody. '^ 
It  is  evident  that  the  constable  was  careless  and  non-resident,  and  he  certainly 
did  not  continue  to  hold  office  very  long,  for  soon  the  castle  was  again  in 
the  custody  of  the  bailiff,  though  in  1328  the  late  owner,  William  Roos,  was 
put  in  charge  for  a  time^.  In  the  following  year  this  disastrous  experiment 
in  royal  administration  was  brought  to  an  end  by  the  grant  of  both  castle 
and  manor  for  life  to  William  Montague,^  soon  to  become  earl  of  Salisbury, 
who  thus  acquired  a  property  so  ravaged  as  to  be  quite  worthless  for  the 
time  being.'*  The  crown  recognised  this  in  1333  by  converting  the  life 
grant  into  a  grant  in  fee  tail  '  because  of  the  very  large  sums  which  he  will 
have  to  lay  out  in  fortifying  the  castle  of  the  manor,'  which  was  'ruined  and 
broken.'  ^ 

The  Montagues  showed  little  personal  interest  in  the  castle.®  During 
the  time  that  it  remained  in  their  family  it  was  generally  sub-let,  at  one 
time  the  tenant  being  Joan  Coupland,  who  undertook  in  1365  as  the  terms 
of  her  lease  'to  guard,  maintain  and  defend  the  premises  against  all  men 
save  the  king  and  his  eldest  son.'  The  structural  upkeep  of  the  castle  was 
to  fall  on  the  lessor,  and  he  undertook  to  spend  40  marks  that  very  year  in 
repairing  the  'dongon'  and  walls,  but  the  lessee  was  responsible  for  all 
restoration  if  the  castle  were  taken  or  burnt  by  enemies.'  During  the  almost 
constant  border  warfare  of  the  later  fourteenth  century,  which  continued 
whether  truces  had  been  agreed  to  or  not,  Wark  suffered  with  other  places. 
William  Swinburne,  the  lessee  who  succeeded  Joan  Coupland,  not  only  had  the 
castle  captured  from  him  but  was  himself  taken  prisoner,^  and  it  is  probably 
to  this  event  that  reference  was  made  in  the  negotiations  between  England 
and  Scotland  conducted  by  John  of  Gaunt  in  1383,  when  it  was  agreed  that 
the  damage  done  by  the  Scots  to  the  buildings  and  walls  should  be  assessed 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1323-1327,  p.  476.  '  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  97.  »  See  pages  40-41. 

«  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1330-1333,  p.  375. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  p.  462  ;  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354-1360,  p.  174. 

'  According  to  Froissart,  the  countess  of  Salisbury  was  resident  there  in  1341  and  entertained  Edward 
III.  who  conceived  a  violent  passion  for  her.  Le  Bel  adds  a  second  visit.  The  whole  matter  is  discussed  at 
length  in  Bates,  Border  Holds,  pp.  359-369. 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1364-1368,  p.  183. 

'  This  is  alluded  to  in  a  document  of  1386.      Dodsworth  MS.  45.  f.  49.    Swinburne  took  up  the  lease  in 

1374.     See  page  41. 

WARK    CASTLE.  53 

by  a  body  of  twelve  esquires,  half  Scots  and  half  English,  assisted 
by  masons  and  carpenters,  and  that  the  sum  thus  ascertained  should  be 
paid  over  to  the  chamberlain  of  England  in  Roxburgh  Castle. ^  At 
this  time  Robert  Ogle  was  John  Montague's  captain  in  Wark,^  but 
none  the  less  a  royal  garrison  was  placed  there  in  1384,^  in  view 
of  a  threatened  invasion.  The  castle  must  have  suffered  consider- 
ably during  these  years,  and  in  1390  the  whole  property  was  worth 
nothing  and  the  castle  lay  in  ruins.**  Sir  Thomas  Grey,  who  acquired  the 
property  in  1398,^  was  soon  to  learn  the  dangers  of  his  position,  for  in  1399, 
while  he  was  assisting  Henry  IV.  to  secure  the  crown,  the  Scots  '  took  his 
castle,  robbed  his  goods  to  the  value  of  £2,000,  put  his  infants  and  people 
to  ransom  for  £1,000,  burned  his  houses  and  beat  down  the  castle  walls.'  ^ 
It  is  hardly  surprising  therefore  that  the  manor  and  castle  were  returned  as 
worth  nothing  when  the  owner  died  the  following  year.'  Only  once  more 
was  the  castle  attacked  before  the  close  of  the  middle  ages,  when  James  II. 
of  Scotland  in  1460  designed  to  attack  it  in  the  Lancastrian  interest.  The 
king  was  killed  before  the  army  reached  the  walls,  but  the  place  was  taken 
without  resistance  and  the  fortifications  were  dismantled.^ 

It  was  during  the  sixteenth  century  that  Wark  reached  the  zenith  of 
its  importance.  Its  castle  was  then,  the  earl  of  Northumberland  wrote, 
'the  stay  and  key  of  all  this  country,'^  or  as  this  man's  nephew  and  ultimate 
successor  put  it,  'situate  for  annoyance  and  defence  in  the  best  place  of  all 
the  frontiers. '1°  During  all  this  time  it  belonged  to  the  Greys,  but  it  was 
on  and  off  in  royal  hands  owing  to  the  minority  of  heirs,  and  it  was  as  a  rule 

1  Exchequer,  Treasury  of  Receipt  Misc.  (Placire,  &-c.),  No.  Y — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  70. 

'  Dodsworth  MS.  49,  fol.  Ggdo,  yodo.  '  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  ii.  p.  62. 

•  Inq.  p.m.  13  Ric.  II.  No.  34 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  205-207.  '  See  page  41. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1399-1401,  p.  287.  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  114,  in  his  summary  of  this 
document  gives  2,000  marks  for  ;^2,ooo  and  renders  infants  by  children.  Annates  Henrici  IV.  (RoUs  Series, 
No.  28  vol.  iii.)  pp.  320-321,  say  that  the  Scots  took  Wark  in  the  absence  of  Sir  Thomas  Grey,  and  having 
held  it  for  a  time,  despoiled  it  and  threw  it  dow-n. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  2  Hen.  IV.  No.  50 — Scalacronica,  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  p.  Ix. 

'  Buchanan,  vol.  ii.  book  xii.  p.  53 ;  Pitscottie,  vol.  i.  p.  153.  Cf.  Exchequer  Rolls  of  Scotland,  vol.  vii. 
p.  33.  A  correspondent  writing  to  John  Pastou  on  April  1 8th,  1461,  says,  '  I  herd  ....  that  Henry  the  sext 
is  in  a  place  in  Yorkschire  is  calle  Coroumbr,  such  a  name  it  hath  or  much  lyke."  The  writer  goes  on  to  say 
that  it  was  being  besieged  and  that  Henry  tried  to  escape  by  a  little  postern  on  the  '  bak  syde '  but  in  vain. 
Paston  Letters,  ed.  James  Gairdner  (London,  1904),  vol.  iii.  p.  269.  This  may  have  meant  Wark  under  the 
name  of  Carham,  since  the  Lancastrians  could  not  after  Towton  have  been  so  far  south  as  Yorkshire.  There 
was  at  Wark  such  a  postern  as  is  mentioned,  but  then  most  Castles  had  the  Uke,  and  if  the  fortifications  had 
been  destroyed  in  1460,  they  could  hardly  have  withstood  a  siege  in  April.  1461. 

»  2nd  November,  152S.     Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.225. 
"  May  26th,  1559.     Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1558-1559.  p.  284. 

54  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

garrisoned  and  repaired  largely  at  the  king's  expense.  Quite  early  in  the 
century  it  fell  into  Henry  VII. 's  hands  on  the  death  in  1507  of  Sir  Ralph  Grey, 
whose  son  and  heir,  Thomas,  was  a  minor,  and  one  John  Andeslowe  was 
appointed  constable  of  the  castle  with  command  of  all  men  inhabiting  the 
barony.^  Henry  VIII.  was  not  satisfied  with  this  arrangement,  and 
in  1509  made  Thomas,  newly  created  Lord  Darcy,  steward  of  all 
the  lands  of  Sir  Ralph  Grey  and  constable  of  his  castles  of  Wark 
and  Chillingham."  In  1513  Wark  fell  an  easy  prey  to  James  IV. ,^ 
and  in  view  of  this,  commissioners  were  sent  in  1517  to  view  the 
fortifications.  At  Lord  Dacre's  suggestion  a  sum  of  £480  was  spent 
on  its  restoration,  'which  is  one  of  the  greatest  comforts  that  has 
happened  to  this  country,  and  no  less  a  displeasure  to  the  Scots,'  as 
Wolsey  was  informed.*  A  year  later  Dacre  was  asking  for  munitions  and 
ten  serpentines,  two  slings  'with  a  greater  piece  of  ordnance  for  scouring 
of  fords  of  Tweed  and  twenty  hagbushes,'  and  he  further  suggested  that  three 
gunners  might  be  spared  from  the  sixty  at  Berwick.^  Much  had  been 
achieved  with  the  £480.  The  keep  was  finished,  being  four  storeys  high, 
in  each  of  which  there  were  '  five  great  murder  holes,  shot  with  great  vaults 
of  stone,  except  one  stage  which  is  of  timber,  so  that  great  bombards  can 
be  shot  from  each  of  them.'  The  uppermost  storey  was  used  for  keeping 
ordnance,  and  above  it  was  a  watchhouse  from  which  Norham  Castle  and 
the  outskirts  of  Berwick  could  be  seen.  Lower  down  was  the  accommoda- 
tion for  the  constable  and  forty  foot-men,  while  a  series  of  trapdoors  in  each 
floor  allowed  for  a  hoist  to  bring  up  ordnance.  Further  plans,  estimated 
to  cost  another  £220,  included  the  adding  of  a  gate  giving  direct  access  to  the 
outside,  to  be  used  only  in  time  of  peace,  and  the  strengthening  of  the  inner 
and  outer  wards.  The  inner  curtain,  dividing  the  outer  from  the  inner 
ward,  was  to  be  provided  with  an  iron  gate,  set  in  the  vaulted  passage, 
sufficiently  high  to  allow  an  armed  man  to  ride  in  underneath,  and  built  on 
to  this  passage  there  was  to  be  a  two  storey  building  with  accommodation 
for  a  garrison  of  140  men  on  the  upper  floor,  six  men  in  each  chamber,  with 
their  horses  beneath,  twelve  horses  in  each  stable.  In  addition  to  this, 
there  was  to  be  a  hall  with  kitchen,  bakehouse  and  other  offices  in  this 

'  Cal.  0/  Patent  Rolls,  1494-1509,  p.  595.  '  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  i,  p.  28. 

'  Buchanan,  vol.  ii.  book  xiii.  p.  133.        *  Letters  and  Papers  oj  Hen.  VIII .,  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  1075,  1080. 
'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  i.  p.  140. 



ji-Skercf)    ojf  Wayrk  Cns/lcJ'rom 

ward,  a  well  for  providing  the  garrison  with  water,  and  accommodation  for 
a  flock  of  sheep  and  eight  score  beasts  at  night  time  and  in  times  of  raid. 
Under  such  circumstances  Wark  would  indeed  have  princely  accommodation 
for  its  garrison.  The  outer  ward  was  already  on  the  high  road  to  completion. 
The  gatehouse,  three  storeys  high, 
was  nearly  finished.  The  ground 
floor  consisted  of  two  vaults,  the 
one  providing  an  entrance  passage 
sufficiently  high  to  admit  a  load 
of  hay,  the  other  room  for  a 
porter's  lodge  and  a  chamber 
within  it.  The  corner  of  the 
curtain  wall  where  it  touched  the 
Tweed  was  strengthened  by  a 
little  tower  three  storeys  high, 
and  Dacre  wished  to  build  yet 
another  such  tower  to  protect  a 
postern  on  the  western  side,  pre- 
sumably opening  out  of  the  inner 
ward,  as  it  was  used  by  the  garrison  for  getting  out  into  the  country  from 
the  keep  and  for  bringing  relief  into  the  keep  in  days  of  siege.  The  outer 
ward  was  intended  as  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  district 
in  time  of  war,  and  to  accommodate  1,000  head  of  horses  and  cattle  in  days 
of  foray. 

Dacre  believed  that  once  the  castle  was  thus  furnished,  it  could  be 
kept  up  from  the  profits  of  the  property,  which  at  the  moment  lay  waste, 
and  he  pointed  out  that  in  time  of  peace  four  gunners  could  keep  the  castle, 
and  that  in  any  case  it  would  never  require  more  than  a  third  part  of  the 
garrison  of  Berwick  and  yet  prove  'a  Jewell  of  Noysaunce'  to  the  Scots, 
whom  he  pictured  as  riding  along  the  frontier  near  by  and  hearing  'a  noise 
which  should  be  displeasant  to  them  and  to  the  comfort  of  the  king's  subjects 
hearing  the  same.'  This,  however,  would  only  be  possible  if  Wolsey  would 
see  that  some  of  the  Newcastle  coal  ships  in  the  Thames  were  loaded  up  with 
ordnance  on  their  homeward  trip.^     Though  Dacre's  plan  was  not  carried 

'  P.R.O.  State  Papers,  Scotland,  vol.  i.  No.  58.  The  document  is  printed  in  extenso  in  Border  Holds,  pp. 
342-344,  and  abstracted  in  Letters  and  Papers  0/  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  1307-1308.  The  date  in 
this  last  is  wrongly  given  as  15 18. 

Fig.  2. — Wark  Castle.     Time  of  Elizabeth. 

56  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

to  completion,  at  least  he  received  the  ;f 220  for  which  he  asked, ^  and  his  work 
doubtless  impressed  the  French  ambassadors  who  were  lodged  in  the  castle 
on  their  way  to  Scotland  in  1520. ^  But  even  then  Scottish  borderers  were  so 
bold  as  to  carry  raids  right  up  to  the  walls,  though  in  one  case  Dacre's  men 
issued  forth  and  recouped  the  bailiff,  who  had  had  his  horse  killed,  by  seizing 
six  'kye'  from  over  the  water.^ 

Though  the  boy  owner  of  Wark  had  died  in  1509  and  his  great  uncle, 
Edward  Grey,  had  succeeded  to  his  Durham  property,*  Wark  seems  to  have 
continued  in  the  hands  of  the  crown.  The  relations  between  England 
and  Scotland  allowed  of  no  relaxation  of  effort  on  the  border.  Early 
in  1522  reinforcements  were  being  sent  north  in  view  of  the  threatening 
attitude  of  the  duke  of  Albany,  whose  herald  told  Wolsey  that  Wark  and 
Norham  would  not  take  long  to  win,^  and  200  of  them  were  posted  in  Wark.^ 
The  truth  was  that  the  gentry  of  the  East  March  were  by  no  means  anxious 
to  serve  against  the  Scots,  and  when  Albany  approached  the  border,  William 
Ellerker  deserted  his  post  at  Wark,  where  he  was  seemingly  constable, 
and  Dacre,  as  he  rather  strangely  puts  it,  'was  obliged  to  allow  the  Greys 
of  Northumberland  to  enter  and  keep  it.'  '  The  new  captain  was  none  other 
than  the  rightful  owner,  Sir  Edward  Grey,  who  early  in  the  following  year 
received  £55  12s.  od.  for  keeping  his  own  castle,  and  was  continued  in  office 
even  after  the  most  pressing  danger  was  over  and  Dacre  had  bluffed  Alban}^ 
into  signing  a  truce.^  The  Scottish  danger  was  not  averted,  but  only  post- 
poned, and  one  of  the  king's  gunners  was  inspecting  the  fortress  early  in 
1523.®  Indeed,  it  was  to  be  a  centre  of  interest  throughout  that  year's 
campaigning.  In  the  earlier  months  the  English  acted  on  the  offensive, 
and  on  July  ist  part  of  the  earl  of  Surrey's  army  under  Dacre  was  operating 
from  Carham  and  Wark,i"  just  after  a  daring  raid  had  been  carried  out  by 
Seton,  who  was  now  captain  of  the  castle.  Having  secured  reinforcements 
under  Lord  Leonard  Grey,  he  had  left  the  latter  in  charge  of  the  fortress,  while 
he  led  a  foray  across  the  river,  slaying  25  and  capturing  61  of  the  enemy 

'   Letters  and' Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  i.  p.  279.  =  Ibid.  p.  401.  '  Ibid.  p.  794. 

•  Durham  Cursitor  Records — Dep.  Keep.  Rep.  XLIV.,  App.  p.  400. 

^  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  882. 

«  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  852,  886. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  1076-1077.        Ellerker  seems  to  have  thrown 
up  his  command  on  August  31st.     Lord  Dacre's  Accounts — Border  Holds,  p.  356. 

«  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  1198,  1327.        '  Ibid.  p.  1176.        '"  Ibid.  p.  1317. 

WARK    CASTLE.  57 

with  loss  of  only  two  of  his  own  men,  one  killed  and  one  captured. ^  So 
consistent  was  the  harrying  carried  on  by  the  Wark  garrison,  that  the  prioress 
of  Coldstream  complained  that  'they  do  play  pluck  at  the  crow  with  her.'  ^ 
They  might  well  be  confident,  for  no  less  a  judge  than  the  earl  of  Surrey, 
having  had  two  new  bulwarks  added,  believed  that  the  castle  could  stand 
a  ten  days  siege,  and  that  though  the  outer  ward  might  be  reduced  in  two 
days,  the  keep  would  be  as  safe  as  before,  since  it  was  '  the  strongest  thing  I 
have  ever  seen,'  as  he  put  it.^  Still  there  was  one  weakness  in  the  shallowness 
of  the  foundations,  which,  being  not  two  feet  below  the  surface,  made  mining 
a  serious  danger. *  An  attack  from  Albany,  who  had  returned  from  France, 
was  threatened  early  in  October,  when  Lord  Ogle  held  the  office  of  captain,^ 
though  he  had  been  replaced  before  the  24th  of  that  month^  by  Sir  William 
Lisle,  who  was  in  command  when  Albany  appeared  on  the  northern  bank 
of  the  river  on  Saturday,  October  31st.  All  Sunday  and  Monday  he  bom- 
barded the  fortress  across  the  Tweed,  which  was  too  full  to  ford.  On 
Monday  afternoon  at  3  p.m.  he  sent  2,000  Frenchmen  across  in  boats  to 
make  an  assault,  and  some  fierce  hand  to  hand  fighting  took  place.  The 
keep  was  evidently  too  strong  to  be  attacked,  but  both  the  outer  and  inner 
wards  were  carried,  though  Lisle  and  his  hundred  men  were  ultimately  able 
to  drive  them  out  again  with  only  ten  casualties.  Still,  the  position  was 
precarious,  and  Lisle  sent  a  hasty  message  to  Surrey  to  say  that  he  could 
not  hold  out  without  help.  To  this  the  English  commander  responded  at 
once,  and  when  Albany  saw  the  relieving  force  approach,  he  broke  up  his 
camp  and  fled,"  to  the  disgust  of  his  own  men  and  the  scorn  of  the  enemy. 

Like  cowards  stark 
At  the  castle  of  Wark 
By  the  water  o{  Tweed 
Ye  had  evil  speed. 
Like  cancered  curs 
Ye  lost  your  spurs 
For  in  that  fray 
Ye  ran  away 
With,  hey.  dog,  hey  !  ' 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  1310.  This  doubtless  is  the  same  raid  as  the  one 
Surrey  reported  to  Wolsey,  when  he  described  Lord  Leonard  Grey  as  the  leader,  since  the  number  of 
prisoners  is  almost  identical.     Ibid.  p.  1321. 

•^  Ibid.  p.  1385.  »  Ibid.  p.  1400.  *  Ibid.  p.  1445.  '  Ibid.  p.  1424. 

«  He  was  at  Bolton,  awaiting  instructions  on  that  day.     Ibid.  p.  1444. 

^  Ibid.  pp.  1440,  1450,  1454,  1459.  1461.  1467;  Harl.  MS.  297,  ff.  127-135;  Hall,  p.  666,  gives  an 
account  in  accord  with  the  official  documents,  Buchanan,  vol.  ii.  Book  xiv.  166-167,  makes  the  siege  much 
longer,  but  though  he  was  with  the  Scottish  army  his  testimony  is  biassed  by  his  evident  desire  to  shield 
Albany's  reputation.  '  Poetical  Works  of  John  Skelton,  ed.  A.  Uycc,  vol.  ii.  p.  69. 

Vol.  XL  * 

58  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

Surrey  could  hardly  believe  his  good  fortune,  and  boasted  to  Wolsey 
that  there  had  been  over  i,ooo  Frenchmen  and  500  Scots  attacking  the 
little  garrison  of  100  in  the  outer  ward.^  Wark  he  now  thought  could  not 
have  held  out  very  long,  and  on  November  3rd,  while  still  unconvinced  that 
the  Scottish  army  had  been  disbanded,  he  wished  the  fortress,  of  which  he 
had  been  so  proud,  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  for  he  could  hardly  get  men  to 
stay  there,  but  next  day  he  thought  the  danger  over.  It  is  obvious  that 
Albany's  bombardment  had  not  been  without  effect,  but  the  real  trouble 
was  that  no  money  was  forthcoming  to  pay  the  troops,  and  Surrey  urged 
the  government  to  do  something  quickly  for  men  who  had  fought  so  splen- 
didly.^  Still  the  damage  was  considerable  ;  the  walls  had  been  '  sore  beat 
with  the  duke's  siege,'  and  the  roof  of  the  keep  had  been  taken  off  to  make 
an  emplacement  for  guns,  so  that  the  timbers  had  been  much  injured  and  the 
place  was  uninhabitable,  but  it  was  not  till  June,  1524,  that  Dacre  got 
permission  to  start  restoration  and  to  get  lead  for  the  roof  from  Dunstan- 
burgh.^  It  was  doubtless  this  delay  which  caused  Sir  William  Lisle  to 
neglect  his  charge,  for  after  Surrey's  departure  he  never  went  near  the  castle, 
and  ultimately  resigned  the  post.  Sir  Ralph  Fenwick  was  anxious  to 
succeed  him,  but  Dacre  advised  Surrey  to  tell  him  that  his  neglect  as  keeper 
of  Tindale  was  no  qualification  for  fresh  office  but  rather  for  his  dismissal 
from  what  he  already  held.  Meanwhile  Charles  Thrilkeld  was  put  in  charge 
of  Wark,  pending  more  definite  arrangements.*  All  through  this  time  Sir 
William  Ellerker  seems  to  have  continued  as  constable,  despite  his  neglect 
of  duty  in  1522,  though  £10  2s.  was  deducted  from  his  wages  for  this,^  and 
he  continued  as  such  down  to  1528  when  he  lay  dying  and  the  earl  of  North- 
umberland was  trying  to  get  the  reversion  of  his  office.^  The  garrison  had 
probably  been  reduced  as  suggested  in  1534,''  but  some  were  left,^  and  doubt- 
less over  these  the  captain,  as  deputy  to  the  constable,  held  command. 
Something,  too,  was  done  to  keep  the  fabric  in  repair,^  so  that  despite  the 
comparative  peace  on  the  border  and  the  preoccupation   of   the  Scots  in 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  1461. 

*  Letters  and  Papers  oj  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  1459.  1460. 

'  Ibid.  vol.  iv.  pt.  i.  pp.  112,  142,  174.  A  report  dated  1523  [Ibid.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  1369)  probably  relates 
to  this  period. 

*  Ibid.  pt.  iv.,  vol.  i.  pp.  13,  63.  '  Ibid.  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  1520.  «  Ibid.  vol.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  2126. 
'  Ibid.  vol.  iv.  pt.  i.  p.  305.                                                                                      '  Ibid.  p.  1345. 

*  Payments  made  17  Hen.  VIII.  for  repairs  of  Wark  Castle,  P.R.O.  Accounts,  Exchequer  K.  R.  Bundle  490, 
No.  13. 

WARK    CASTLE.  59 

faction  fights  at  home,  Wark  still  remained  a  royal  castle,  and  Edward 
Grey  never  seems  to  have  held  the  barony,  which  legally  fell  into  the  king's 
hands  at  his  death  in  1531,  since  his  son  and  heir  Ralph  was  a  minor.^  Even 
before  this,  however,  in  March,  1530,  one  Robert  CoUingwood  had  been 
appointed  by  the  crown  to  the  office  of  keeper  of  the  castle  and  manor  with 
the  rents  called  'Castlewards,'  -  so  that  it  is  evident  that  the  succession  of 
the  minor  made  no  real  difference.  Wark  was  treated,  and  even  described, 
as  a  royal  castle,^  and  in  1541  the  township  was  returned  officially  as  'of  the 
King's  Majesties  inherytaunce.'  *  It  was  natural  that  a  place  on  which  the 
crown  was  always  spending  so  much  money  should  be  under  its  control, 
for  the  castle  was  an  ever  constant  drain  on  the  royal  purse,  even  in  times 
of  comparative  peace.  In  1533  commissioners  reported  that  it  'has  been 
ill  seen  to  and  is  far  out  of  frame,'  ^  and  its  speedy  repair  and  additions  to 
its  artillery  were  insisted  on  from  another  quarter  ;^  in  1537,  though  in  not 
much  worse  repair  than  when  Albany  besieged  it,  it  needed  the  expenditure 
of  at  least  ^^40  ;'^  in  1538,  again  it  needed  repair,  and  the  earthworks  thrown 
up  by  Surrey  had  fallen  into  decay. ^  Such  was  the  position  when  CoUing- 
wood resigned  his  post  of  keeper  of  the  castle  and  manor  in  December,  1538, 
and  was  succeeded  by  John  Carr  of  Hetton,^  the  most  famous  of  the  captains 
of  Wark,  known  universally  on  the  border  as  Carr  of  Wark,  reputed  'a  good 
housekeeper  and  true  sharp  borderer,'^"  and,  with  many  ups  and  downs 
and  temporary  dispossessions,  the  commander  of  the  castle  down  to  his  death 
in  1551." 

Thanks  to  the  survey  of  1541,  and  perhaps  to  the  report  of  an  inspector 
sent  by  the  king,!^  we  have  a  very  fair  idea  of  the  state  of  the  castle  when 
John  Carr  took  over  the  command.  It  had  never  been  thoroughly  repaired 
since  the  siege  of  1523,  the  roof  of  the  keep  was  still  half  off,  and  the  walls 

'  Col.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  p.  434.  This  document,  dated  May  6th,  1554.  seems  to  imply 
that  Sir  Edward  Grey  held  Wark  at  his  death  and  gives  the  date  of  his  death  as  December  6th,  1531.  Raine, 
North  Durham,  pp.  326-327,  giving  no  authority,  states  it  to  have  been  '  Dec.  6th.  3  Tunstall,  1533,'  though  this 
would  be  1532.  Sir  Edward  executed  a  deed  August  loth,  1531.  Durham  Cursitor  Records — Dep.  Keeper's 
Rep.  xliv.  App.  p.  401. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  iv.  pt.  iii.  p.  2830.  '  Ibid.  vol.  xiii.  pt.  i.  p.  19. 

*  Survey  of  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  347.  '  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  vi.  p.  67. 
'  Ibid.  pp.  54,  120.                                     '  Ibid.  vol.  xii.  pt.  i.  pp.  356,  423  ;   vol.  xii.  pt.  ii.  p.  141. 

*  Ibid.  vol.  xiii.  pt.  i.  pp.  19,  337,  347.  •  Ibid.  vol.  xiii.  pt.  ii.  p.  491. 
'"  Brit.  Museum  Cotton  MS.  CaUgula,  fol.  503do. 

1'  He  is  mentioned  as  captain  of  Wark  in  Survey  of  the  Border,  1551 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  207, 
and  his  will  is  dated  in  August  of  that  year.     Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  138. 

'^  The  king's  servant,  Roger,  was  sent  to  view  the  castle,  and  the  date  given  in  the  calendar  is  1542, 
but  this  is  only  an  inference.     Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.   VIII.,  vol.  xvii.  p.  230. 

6o  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

were  exposed  to  the  wet,  so  that  two  big  cracks  had  appeared  in  them, 
necessitating  the  building  of  two  strong  buttresses,  while  the  wall  of  the 
outer  ward  still  lay  in  practical  ruins  and  the  roofs  of  the  gatehouse  and 
the  corner  tower  by  the  river  were  off.  Surrey's  bulwarks,  which  seem  to 
have  been  one  in  the  outer  and  the  other  in  the  inner  ward,  had  been  all  very 
well  for  an  emergency,  but  they  were  only  made  of  soil  and  turf  and  needed 
to  be  built  with  stone  and  lime.  Further  it  appears  that  all  Dacre's  plans 
had  not  been  carried  out,  and  particularly  nothing  but  the  walls  of  the 
building  in  the  inner  ward,  designed  for  the  housing  of  the  garrison,  had 
been  built.  This  the  commissioners  recommended  should  be  finished,  and 
another  'long  house,'  which  had  stables  beneath  and  garners  above,  should 
be  repaired.  Taking  it  as  a  whole,  the  commissioners  had  no  very  high 
opinion  of  the  castle's  strength  for  the  reason  discovered  by  Surrey  after 
his  first  enthusiastic  description.  It  could  not  withstand  a  'siege  royal,'  as 
its  situation  offered  such  opportunities  for  mining,  but  '  consyderynge  the 
Scottes  and  especyally  the  borderers  to  be  men  of  no  great  experyence  or 
engyne  in  the  assaillinge  of  fortresses,'  at  a  cost  of  little  more  than  £200 
the  place  might  be  made  quite  strong  enough  to  hold  up  an  invading  army 
till  succour  came.  Moreover,  the  castle  was  '  the  only  chefe  succour  relefe 
and  defence  of  all  the  quarter  of  the  border  of  England  lying  on  the  west 
syde  of  the  ryver  Tyll,'  and  if  not  repaired,  would  lead  to  the  desolation  of 
the  whole  district,  while  on  the  other  hand  a  garrison  of  200  men  in  time 
of  war  could  '  do  more  annoyance  and  dyspleasures  to  the  Scottes  and  more 
relefe  to  the  Englyshe  Inhabytants  of  that  border  than  yf  they  were  in  any 
other  place  of  all  the  said  marches.'  ^ 

No  elaborate  repairs  could  be  undertaken  for  the  moment,  as  all  English 
attention  was  concentrated  from  quite  early  in  1542  on  the  threatening 
attitude  of  the  Scots.  In  August  preparations  for  munitioning  Wark  were 
in  full  swing,  an  inspection  of  the  existing  ordnance  was  ordered,  'and 
oon  good  pece  we  wold  also  youe  caused  to  be  sent  thither  of  the  store  of  our 
ordenance  at  Berwike,  with  four  or  five  other  convenient  peices  of  iron  if 
nede  require,  and  powder  shott  convenient,  and  a  gunner  or  two  to  use  the 
same.'  ^  It  was  reported  to  the  lord  warden  that  the  castle  could  not  be 
held,^  and  the  position  was  complicated  by  the  fact  that  John  Carr  had 

•  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  pp.  347-349. 

'  Hamillon  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  153-154.  '  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  164. 

WARK    CASTLE.  6l 

been  captured  in  a  foray,  but  to  every  one's  surprise  he  was  set  free  by  his 
captor  on  his  own  recognizances  and  those  of  some  Scottish  friends,  and 
he  came  back  fully  prepared  to  play  his  part  in  the  defence  of  the  border. 
He  had  learnt  in  Scotland  that  an  attack  on  Wark  took  a  prominent  place 
in  Scottish  plans,  and  he  wrote  urgently  to  Rutland,  the  lord  warden, 
begging  for  money  to  pay  the  wages  of  fifty  men  chosen  by  himself,  since 
of  a  hundred  men  who  had  taken  part  in  the  foray,  only  fifty,  and  they 
wounded  and  unequipped,  had  managed  to  get  back.^  Rutland  at  once 
complied  with  his  request,  and  reported  to  the  privy  council  '  of  what  good 
courage  he  is  to  kepe  the  said  house  of  Wark.'  ^  but  by  return  he  received 
instructions  to  deprive  Carr  of  his  command,  and  to  put  in  his  place  a  certain 
Robert  Raymond,  hastily  sent  up  from  London  for  this  purpose.  In  a 
lengthy  despatch  Rutland  was  told  to  act  secreth',  and  having  summoned 
Carr  to  him,  to  explain  to  him  that,  as  a  prisoner  on  parole,  it  was  not  suitable 
for  him  to  command  the  fortress,  but  that  he  would  be  sent  elsewhere  with 
his  fifty  men,  who  were  to  be  at  once  fetched  from  Wark.  Where  this  new 
post  should  be  was  left  to  Rutland's  discretion,  though  he  was  to  be  careful 
to  appoint  some  one  else  to  command  there  before  Carr  should  be  sent 
thither.  Having  thus  cozened  Carr,^  he  was  to  send  Raymond  to  Wark 
with  a  force  of  picked  men  and  plenty  of  food  and  ammunitions.  If  the 
castle  were  already  besieged  by  the  time  these  instructions  arrived,  Raymond 
was  to  be  got  into  it  by  craft,  if  possible,  but  this  must  not  be  attempted  if 
attended  with  any  danger,  'rather  then  he  shold  be  put  in  extreme  perill, 
his  majestie  wold  reserve  him  for  a  better  tyme.'  If  things  looked  threaten- 
ing, Rutland  was  to  call  out  the  men  of  the  Bishopric,  Westmorland  and 
Cumberland  and  the  garrison  of  Berwick,  and  even  to  send  for  Sir  Thomas 
Wharton  from  Carlisle,  and  he  was  given  elaborate  instructions  of  how  to 
try  and  bluff  the  Scots  if  he  was  not  in  sufficient  force,  and  how  to  manoeuvre 
if  he  was  more  confident  of  his  strength.  If  Raymond  was  able  to  enter 
Wark,  he  was  to  have  every  support  and  to  be  provided  with  everything 
that  he  asked  for.*  A  better  case  of  favouritism,  or  something  worse,  hamper- 
ing the  man  on  the  spot  could  hardly  be  found,  though  there  are  signs  that 
what  the  government  feared  was  that  Carr  was  in  collusion  with  the 
Scots,   for  a  fortnight  later  the  king  wrote  that  he  heard  that  not  only 

•  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  166.  '  Ibid.  vol.  i.  pp.  164-165. 

'  *  Enterteyning  him  in  gentle  sort.'  *  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  175-177. 

62  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

was  the  castle  'farre  out  of  order,'  but  that  'there  be  yet  Scottes  borne 
suffred  to  remayn  in  the  house.'  ^  Rutland  promised  to  obey  instructions, 
though  at  the  moment  the  war  cloud  seemed  to  be  clearing,  and  in  any  case 
it  seemed  likely  that  Carr  would  have  to  return  to  Scotland  till  peace  was 
signed.-  But  Carr  was  not  removed,  much  to  the  indignation  of  the  govern- 
ment when  it  learnt  that  on  September  26th  the  Scots  had  surprised  some 
workmen  carting  stone  from  Carham  church  to  the  castle,  and  had  carried 
off  three  of  the  king's  carts  without  any  rescue  being  attempted  by  Carr 
and  his  fifty  men.^  The  stone  was  undoubtedly  intended  for  the  repairs  of 
the  castle,  the  keep  of  which  was  reported  as  still  largely  roofless  and  the  well 
choked  up  and  useless.^  However  by  October  28th  matters  had  been 
improved,  and  the  council  was  then  assured  by  Norfolk  and  other  commis- 
sioners that  they  feared  '  nothing  but  the  mine  for  Wark,  which  is  otherwise 
not  pregnable.'  ^  After  all  these  alarms  and  excursions,  it  was  not  at  Wark 
that  the  blow  fell.  On  November  23rd  Hertford  wrote  to  the  council  that 
he  heard  from  Raymond  and  Carr  at  Wark,  where  the  two  rivals  seem  to 
have  settled  down  together  despite  the  order  from  London,  that  the  Scots 
were  going  to  throw  their  strength  onto  the  West  March, ^  and  indeed  it  was 
on  that  very  day  that  they  rode  to  disaster  at  Solway  Moss. 

John  Carr  remained  captain  of  Wark,  and  in  that  capacity  the  following 
July  he  repelled  a  Scottish  foray,  which  however  got  away  with  100  head 
of  cattle,  though  the  English  followed  and  helped  themselves  to  80  head 
and  20  nags,  not  to  mention  24  prisoners.'  In  October  he  took  part  in  a 
more  official  raid.^  More  than  this,  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the 
restoration  of  the  fortress  undertaken  in  earnest.  In  February,  1543, 
the  work  was  set  in  hand,  and  about  100  workmen  were  continuously 
employed,  the  sum  which  had  been  expended  by  November  loth  being  no 
less  than  £1,846  i6s.  yd.^  The  work  was  still  going  on  in  February,  1544, 
though  the  government  were  then  getting  a  little  anxious  about  the  cost.^" 
Even  then  the  expense  did  not  cease,  for  in  December,  1544,  John  Carr  reported 
that  the  wall  of  the  outer  ward  lying  towards  the  river  had  fallen  down.^^ 

'  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  222.  '  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xvii.  p.  414. 

'  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  242,  245.  •  Ibid.  p.  222. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xvii.  p.  555.  "  Ibid.  vol.  .xvii.  p.  615. 

'  Ibid.  vol.  xviii.  pt.  i.  p.  493.  "  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  119-120. 

'  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  129-130;  Letters  and  Papers  oj  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xviii.  pt.  ii.  p.  200.     The 
full  accounts  are  in  Harleian  MS.  1724,  fol.  166,  and  this  is  fully  abstracted  in  Border  Holds,  pp.  349-350. 
">  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  272.  "  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p   537. 

WARK    CASTLE.  63 

Petit,  a  Frenchman  and  the  surveyor  of  Calais, ^  was  sent  from  London  to 
examine  the  damage, ^  but  Thomas  Gower,  who  had  had  the  repairs  in  hand 
since  July,  1543,^  complained  of  delay  in  the  matter.*  Archane  Archana, 
an  Italian  in  the  king's  employ,  whose  name  the  Enghsh  officials  had  much 
trouble  to  spell, ^  forwarded  to  the  earl  of  Shrewsbury  a  'plott'  of  the  castle 
with  the  information  that  it  was  'in  marvelouse  greate  ruyne,  in  so  moche 
that  it  raynethe  almost  into  everie  parte  of  the  same.'  The  captain  was 
without  accommodation,  the  carts  had  to  stand  outside  without  cover  and 
would  rot,  but  plenty  of  lead  lay  in  Kelso  cloister  unused  and  would  be 
valuable  at  Wark.  Finally  would  the  king  kindly  give  him  some  other 
employment,  as  at  Wark  he  had  done  all  that  was  possible^ — a  somewhat 
disjointed  communication,  but  eloquent  of  the  way  public  money  had  been 
wasted  during  recent  repairs.  Perhaps  professional  jealousy  may  have 
accounted  for  some  of  the  strictures,  but  at  any  rate  the  Italian  did  not  stay 
to  carry  out  his  work,  and  in  the  following  month  Gower  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  Scots.'  By  August,  however,  the  breach  in  the  wall  had  been 

These  three  years,  during  which  the  masons  had  been  constantly  at 
work  on  the  fortifications,  had  been  also  times  of  considerable  activity  on 
the  border.  Henry  VIII.  was  trying  to  reap  advantage  from  the  faction 
fights  which  from  the  first  surrounded  the  throne  of  the  infant  Mary  queen 
of  Scots,  and  he  was  convinced  that  harrying  and  burning  would  subdue 
the  Scots  to  his  will.  In  September,  1543,  the  duke  of  Suffolk  was  sent 
up  to  prepare  to  invade  from  Wark,  the  objective  being  Edinburgh,  but 
beyond  a  little  harrying,  in  which  the  castle  garrison  took  its  part,  nothing 
was  achieved  that  year,^  though  the  sacking  of  Edinburgh  was  accom- 
plished in  the  following  May.  For  the  moment  a  certain  Clifford  seems  to 
have  been  captain  of  Wark,i°  but  John  Carr  was  back  in  command  by  April, 
1544,  when  he  received  the  special  thanks  of  the  king  and  privy  council 
for  his  'good  service  and  manly  forwardness.'  ^^  Despite  this  the  govern- 
ment does  not  seem  to  have  trusted  him.     In  March,  1545,  instructions 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1561-1562.  p.  347. 

=  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII..  vol.  xx.  pt.  i.  pp.  24-25,  37.  >  Ibid.  vol.  xviii.  pp.  516,  538. 

♦  Ibid,  vol   XX.  pt.  i.  pp.  78-79.  '  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  546.  *  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  549 

'  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  567.  '  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xx.  pt.  u.  p.  41. 

»  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  44.  52,  117.  118.  "  Ibid.  p.  118. 

"  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xix.  pt.  i.  p.  223. 

64  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

were  sent  north  that  some  one  should  be  sent  to  Wark  and  Berwick  on  some 
excuse  to  see  '  howe  and  with  what  nombres '  they  were  held.  The  spy,  for 
he  was  little  else,  was  ordered  up  to  London  to  report  in  person,  but  part 
of  the  information  secured  was  put  on  paper.  The  regular  garrison  con- 
sisted of  25  horsemen  and  9  gunners,  John  Boyd,  porter  of  the  gates,  being 
included  in  the  latter  total.  Every  night  the  watch  was  kept  by  eight  of 
these,  and  two  others  patrolled  to  see  that  the  watchmen  did  their  duty. 
The  ordnance  was  of  a  somewhat  miscellaneous  description,  including  a 
falcon,  a  'halff  slenk,'  'quarter  slenks,'  and  eight  hackbuts.  On  the 
northern  wall  there  were  three  'port  pesses'  and  a  demi-falcon,  on  the  west 
there  were  a  saker,  two  falcons  and  two  'hoU  slenkes.'  On  the  top  of  the 
keep  there  were  a  saker  and  a  broken  falcon.  As  to  munitions,  there  were 
100  sheaves  of  arrows,  40  bows,  six  half-hakes,  40  bills,  4  barrels  of  gun- 
powder and  a  good  supply  of  all  kinds  of  shot.^  Whether  this  report  was 
considered  as  revealing  a  satisfactory  state  of  affairs  we  do  not  know,  but 
it  is  significant  that,  when  Hertford  came  north  in  1545  to  repeat  his  exploit 
of  two  years  earlier,  he  sent  George  Lawson  to  command  Wark,^  where  he 
was  given  100  'hagbutiers'  and  was  told  to  turn  the  200  pioneers  who  were 
working  on  the  defences  into  soldiers  if  need  be.^  By  the  beginning  of  August 
the  English  commander  thought  that  the  castle  was  adequately  munitioned 
and  in  a  proper  state  of  defence,*  and  he  prepared  to  use  it  as  the  base  for 
his  forthcoming  attack  on  Scotland.^  John  Carr  was  still  at  Wark,  and  in 
October  was  taking  an  important  part  in  the  harrying  of  Scottish  territory, 
though  Hertford  was  by  no  means  pleased  with  him  for  not  having  sent  the 
whole  of  his  force  on  a  certain  enterprise.^  His  relations  with  Lawson  can 
hardly  have  been  cordial,  since  the  latter  was  one  of  those  who  had  reported 
adversely  to  the  council  concerning  his  neglect  to  protect  the  workmen 
bringing  stone  from  Carham  in  1542,''  but  they  seem  to  have  been  indepen- 
dent of  one  another,  Lawson  being  the  constable  and  Carr  the  'captain  of 
the  horsemen  at  Wark,'  at  least  so  he  is  described  in  May,  1546,  when  he 
went  up  to  London  to  seek  medical  advice  for  the  stiffness  in  his  limbs 
caused  by  past  wounds,  and  to  put  in  a  claim  for  increased  pay.     Nothing 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xx.  pt.  i.  p.  157  ;  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  587-589. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xx.  pt.  i.  p.  436.  '  Ibid.  p.  516. 

♦  Ibid.  p.  619;  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  54. 

^  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xx.  pt.  ii.  pp.  140-141. 

"  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xx.  pt.  ii.  p.  310.  '  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  242. 

WARK    CASTLE.  65 

could  be  more  cordial  than  the  terms  in  which  Sir  Robert  Bowes  recom- 
mended his  suit  to  the  notice  of  the  council.  'Ever  since  he  came  to  man's 
age,  and  especially  in  these  last  wars,  Carre  has  been  forward  in  every 
dangerous  enterprise,  and  has  spared  neither  friends  nor  substance  in  the 
king's  service.  Since  the  beginning  of  this  war  he  has  twice  been  sore  hurt 
(once  left  in  the  field  for  dead),  has  once  been  taken  prisoner,  and  has  had 
two  brethren  slain  and  the  rest  of  his  brethren  and  his  two  sons  taken 
prisoners.  All  on  these  borders  agree  that  no  borderer  of  any  sort  has 
achieved  so  many  great  adventures  to  the  king's  honor.'  ^ 

Probably  Lawson  was  removed  from  his  charge  soon  after  this,  par- 
ticularly as  he  was  convicted  of  lack  of  discipline,  when  in  April,  1546, 
certain  of  his  retinue  slaughtered  a  batch  of  30  Scottish  prisoners  returning 
home  to  raise  their  ransoms,  an  incident  which  caused  the  grave  displeasure 
of  the  privy  council  in  view  of  the  bad  impression  it  would  make  in  Scot- 
land.^  Carr  is  not  again  mentioned  till  1549,  when  he  commanded  100  horse- 
men at  Wark,^  though  one  must  believe  that  he  returned  north  when 
Somerset  invaded  Scotland  in  1547.  The  castle  figured  prominently  in  the 
preparations  for  this  campaign;  no  less  than  £1,000  was  spent  on  victualling 
it*  ;  work  was  begun  again  on  the  fortifications  under  the  direction  of  William 
Ridgeway,  specially  appointed  to  superintend  it,^  and  the  garrison  was  raised 
to  its  usual  complement  of  200  men.^  But  when  the  campaign  was  over, 
the  castle  suffered  when  the  Scots  began  to  retaliate  with  the  assistance  of 
French  troops,  and  it  was  captured,  though  doubtless  not  held,  by  them 
in  1548  or  1549.^ 

John  Carr  was  in  command  in  1549,  ^^i*^  was  still  keeping  up  his  reputa- 
tion, for  Sir  Francis  Leek,  asking  the  government  for  some  definite  house  in 
which  to  reside,  wrote  that  for  the  time  he  was  living  in  '  the  newe  made 
store  howsse'  at  Wark,  which  he  found  inconvenient  and  costly,  but  that 
he  did  not  want  to  be  put  in  command  there,  '  thereby  to  deface  John  Kar 
whos  servyce  ys  suche  as  all  thother  garysons  yncomparable.'  ^  But  the 
veteran  borderer  was  nearing  the  end  of  his  career,  and  his  last  experience 

1  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xxi.  pt.  i.  p.  401.  '  Ibid.  vol.  xxi.  pt.  i.  pp.  360,  684. 

»  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  37,  46.  ♦  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xxi.  pt.  ii.  p.  449. 

*  Ads  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  ii.  p.  449.  "  CaL  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  p.  329. 

'  Historie  de  la  guerre  d'Escosse  (Bordeaux,  1862),  p.  216.     It  is  called  'le  chasteau  de  Cornwaille,"  i.e. 
Cornhill,  by  the  French  Chronicler. 

'  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  631-632. 
Vol.  XI.  9 

66  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

in  his  charge  was  similar  to  his  earher  ones,  for  in  1550  more  work  was  having 
to  be  done  on  the  fortifications,  seemingly  under  the  guidance  of  Thomas 
Gower,  now  freed  from  captivity,  and  orders  were  issued  for  a  survey  and 
report.^  The  result  of  this  last  we  have  in  Sir  Robert  Bowes's  '  Book  of 
the  State  of  the  Marches,'  where  the  outer  ward  is  said  to  be  in  great  decay, 
the  wall  over  against  the  river  being  still  in  need  of  repair.  Bowes,  however, 
was  more  interested  in  a  scheme  for  drawing  the  village  within  the  fortifi- 
cations, than  in  a  restoration  on  the  existing  plan.  He  urged  that  thereby 
not  only  would  the  townsmen  be  better  protected,  but  so  would  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  country  round,  as  they  could  flee  there  in  time  of  stress, 
while  the  extension  of  the  fortifications  would  be  some  protection  against 
the  mining  of  the  keep,  which,  now  as  ever,  was  the  weak  spot  of  the  fortress. 
For  the  rest,  Bowes  was  very  interested  in  a  plan  for  using  som.e  of  the 
spoils  of  Roxburgh  to  build  a  brewhouse  and  bakehouse  to  supply  with 
food  both  the  castle  and,  in  time  of  war,  an  army  operating  on  the  border. ^ 

John  Carr  was  succeeded  in  the  captaincy  by  his  son,  Thomas,  the 
husband  of  the  heiress  of  Ford,  who  in  1554  was  called  on  to  resign  his 
charge  to  its  rightful  owner.  Ralph  Grey  had  come  of  age  in  1550;  but 
his  petition  for  the  restoration  of  his  lands  and  castle  had  been  postponed. 
In  1554  Queen  Mary  ordered  that  livery  should  be  granted  to  him  'consider- 
ing that  his  inheritance  cannot  justly  be  withdrawn  without  his  free  assent,' 
a  point  of  view  which  was  perhaps  not  quite  characteristic  of  the  Tudors. 
In  return  Ralph  undertook  under  an  obligation  of  £500  to  keep  the  castle 
in  as  good  repair  as  he  received  it,  providing  a  house  porter,  two  gunners 
and  eight  soldiers  in  constant  residence,  to  visit  it  in  person  or  by 
deputy  twice  a  year  in  times  of  peace,  and  'to  repair  thither  and  continue 
in  war,  and  serve  according  to  the  customs  of  the  borders.'  The  royal 
ordnance  and  munitions  in  the  castle  were  to  be  left  there  under  his  care.^ 

The  plan  of  getting  the  owner  to  assume  responsibility  for  the  castle 
worked  no  better  in  the  sixteenth  century  than  it  had  done  previously. 
By  May,  1557,  the  council  was  ordering  Ralph  Grey  to  see  personally  to  its 
safety,  and  in  July  fear  of  an  invasion  led  it  to  allow  Lord  Wharton  to  send 
troops  thither,  and  to  'cause  the  captain,  whose  absence  we  marvel  at,  to 

'  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  vol.  iii.  pp.  44,  91,  222. 

•  Survey  of  the  Border,  1551 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  201-203. 

'  Col.  0/  State  Papers,  Domestic.  1601-1603,  pp.  434-435  ;  Acts  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  v.  p.  201. 

WARK    CASTLE.  67 

be  resident.'  ^  Reluctantly  the  government  had  to  confess  that  its  resources 
did  not  allow  of  any  strengthening  of  the  fortifications,  nor  of  provision 
of  further  troops.  Wark  must  rely  for  its  defence  on  the  borderers  and  such 
men  as  the  lord  warden  could  command, ^  and  meanwhile  pressure  was 
brought  to  bear  on  Grey  to  induce  him  either  to  assume  his  reponsibilities 
in  person,  or  at  least  to  appoint  an  efficient  captain.  At  Lord  Wharton's 
urgent  request  Captain  Read  and  100  men  were  sent  to  garrison  the  place,^ 
but  the  main  trouble  seems  to  have  been  that  when  Grey  did  appoint  a 
captain  in  the  person  of  Rowland  Forster,  brother  of  the  owner  of  Carham,'* 
he  chose  a  man  who  seems  to  have  taken  absurd  risks  on  the  frontier,  and 
to  have  neglected  his  charge  when  he  should  have  been  fortifying  it,  so 
much  so  that  the  earl  of  Northumberland,  protesting  that  he  had  no  personal 
grudge  against  him,  had  him  removed  under  arrest.^  The  earl's  disinter- 
estedness was,  perhaps,  in  some  doubt,  as  he  appointed  his  brother-in-law, 
Francis  Slingsby,  to  the  vacant  post,  a  proceeding  which  the  government 
somewhat  grudgingly  confirmed.^  The  truth  was,  as  the  earl  had  plainly 
put  it,  that  the  attempt  to  use  private  property  and  private  persons  to  do 
work  which  properly  belonged  to  a  royal  castle  and  public  officials  was  to 
court  disaster.  The  Scottish  invasion  which  had  threatened  in  1557,  and 
indeed  had  been  very  near  to  an  attack  on  Wark,  had  only  been  averted  by 
dissensions  in  the  Scottish  camp,^  and  though  George  Lawson  was  captain 
in  1558,^  and  had  some  500  men  under  his  command,  the  place  was  not 
considered  'tenable  against  any  army,  any  time,'  though  it  must  not  be 
evacuated.  As  one  official  wrote,  'it  is  doubtful  whether  Wark  or  Norham, 
belonging  to  subjects,  are  worth  the  expense  they  occasion  the  Prince  in  time 
of  war.'  ^  Very  early  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  the  whole  question  was 
raised  in  view  of  the  tension  between  England  and  the  Guise  influence  in 
Scotland,  which  made  the  safety  of  the  border  a  matter  of  prime  importance. 
In  May,  1559,  the  earl  of  Northumberland  asked  the  council  whether  Sir 
Ralph  Grey  was  to  be  restored  to  his  property,  which  had  been  taken  out  of 

'  Cal.  oj  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  pp.  450,  455.  ^  Ibid.  p.  465. 

^  Acts  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  vi.  pp.  157-158,  159-160,  209  ;  Cal.  oj  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  p.  462. 

*  N.C.H.,  vol.  i.  p.  228.  *  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  pp.  463-464. 
'  Acts  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  vi.  pp.  221-222.         '  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1558-1559,  pp.  97-98. 

*  He  made  his  will  as  Captain  of  Wark,  November  12th,  1558,  and  it  was  proved  the  same  year.      Edward 
Wood  was  second  in  command  under  him.     Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  pp.  176-177. 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1601-1603,  p.  476;  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1558-1559,  pp.  57,  58. 

68  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

his  hands  owing  to  his  former  incompetence^  ;  meanwhile  Captain  Read 
with  100  men  lay  there.  Orders  were  issued  to  hnd  out  the  conditions  of 
Grey's  former  undertaking  and  to  restore  the  property  on  those  terms, 
but  the  men  on  the  spot  were  very  loath  to  have  a  recurrence  of  past  troubles. 
'There  is  no  subject,'  runs  one  report,  'being  owner  of  the  said  castle  that 
can  be  able  whether  to  fortilie  or  kepe  yt,  but  that  in  peace  it  wil  be  in 
daunger  to  be  stolen  and  in  warre  in  perill  to  be  wonne,  and  yet  being  either 
stolen  or  taken  the  dishonour  wer  so  great  to  the  Prince  and  the  Realme 
as  yf  it  pertayned  to  the  Crowne.'  It  was  bad  policy  for  the  government 
to  spend  large  sums  in  fortifying  and  munitioning  a  castle  in  war  time,  and 
then  allow  all  this  to  fall  into  decay  as  soon  as  peace  came,  so  the  only  wise 
thing  to  be  done  was  to  get  complete  control  of  it.^  Sir  Ralph  Sadler  also 
thought  the  contract  between  Sir  Ralph  Grey  and  the  crown  of  little  value, 
for  '  if  it  is  not  better  guarded  than  by  his  covenants  he  is  ordered  to  keep  it, 
it  were  an  easy  thing  to  surprise  it  suddenly.'  Wark  he  considered  was  '  surely 
the  meetest  place  for  a  man  of  service  to  lie  in,'  and  he  wished  that  'the 
queen  could  be  at  some  charge  for  fortifying  it.'  Another  had  a  clear  cut 
plan.  'Take  Wark  and  make  a  great  barbican  with  flankes  to  it  with 
stabling  under  the  walls  for  200  horses,  put  there  the  Lord  Grey,^  a  lieutenant, 
100  horsemen  and  two  porters,  and  assign  for  his  aid  Richmondshire.'  *  Such 
plans  suggested  the  expenditure  of  too  much  money  to  meet  with  Elizabeth's 
approval.  Sir  Ralph  Grey  was  restored,^  and  when  in  1561  Lord  Wharton 
made  suggestions  'for  redressing  Wark  Castle  to  her  possession,'  the  queen 
thought  it  necessary  '  to  have  regard  that  for  so  chargeable  and  uncertain 
revenue  she  be  not  overcharged.'  ®  Accordingly  a  report  on  the  fortress 
was  secured  from  a  certain  Rowland  Johnson,  who  declared  that  it  was  'in 
most  places  fallen  down,  and  having  no  flankers  and  the  rest  that  yet  stands 
more  like  to  fall  than  to  continue,'  it  might  be  captured  'without  shot  of 
great  ordnance,  and  digged  down  with  pickaxes,'  and  even  the  site  he 
condemned,  as  commanded  by  neighbouring  eminences.''  He  went  on  to 
justify  his  opinion  with  elaborate  details.  The  walls  were  as  a  rule  from 
20  feet  to  24  feet  high,  but  most  of  them  in  decay,  and  the  part  overlooking 

1  Col.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1558-1559,  pp.  283-284.         -  P.R.O.  State  Papers,  Domestic,  Borders,  17. 
'  Lord  Grey  de  Wilton,  in  command  of  the  army  against  Scotland. 

«  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,   1558-1559,  pp.  58,  248,  485-486,  453-454.  491.  50i.5M.  516-517,  573, 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1561-1562,  p.  271.  «  Ibid.  p.  266.  '  Ibid.  p.  347. 

WARK    CASTLE.  6g 

the  river,  ever  the  weak  spot,  was  '  for  the  most  part  made  of  earth  and  is 
in  marvellous  decay.'     Even  the  new  walls,  made  in  1545,  were  crumbling, 
and  the  keep  was  only  34  feet  high  with  a  fiat  roof  of  lead  much  damaged. 
Between  the  curtain  wall  and  the  keep  was  a  platform,  about  the  same  height 
and  about  24  feet  broad,   on  which  all  the  ordnance  stood.        The  chief 
criticism  as  to  design  was  that  no  wall  was  'flanked,'  or  in  other  words  it  was 
impossible  to  enfilade  an  attacking  party,^  a  weakness  which  had  struck 
Sir  Robert  Bowes  in  1551.-     Despite  this  adverse  report,  negotiations  for 
taking  over  the  castle  were  begun.     A  royal  survey  estimated  the  value  of 
Sir  Ralph  Grey's  lands  in  the  baronies  of  Wark  and  Wooler  at  £100  15s.  2|d. 
clear,  but  Wark  itself  was  only  estimated  at  £3  6s.  6Jd.  when  the  fee  of  the 
constable,  no  other  than  Rowland  Forster  who  had  formerly  proved  such  a 
failure,  had  been  paid.     The  gross  value  was  reduced  by  £33  6s.  8d.  for 
lands  lying  waste  and  rents  suspended  in  time  of  war,  which  brought  the  nett 
total  to  £67  8s.  6Jd.     Sir  Ralph  Grey  was  evidently  not  anxious  to  part 
with  his  property  at  this  valuation,  for  he  impressed  on  the  surveyor  that 
he  had  six  sons,  the  eldest  13,  and  that  the  land  was  needed  for  their  being 
taught  to  ride  and  become  good  borderers,^  though  all  the  evidence  points 
to  the  fact  that  the  family  lived  at  Chillingham  and  never  came  to  Wark. 
Still  negotiations  were  continued,  and  the  Government  offered  to  take  over 
all  the  lands  in  the  two  baronies  at  an  agreed  rent,  but  when  Sir  Ralph 
demanded  land  for  land,  it  refused  to  negotiate  for  anything  but  the  castle 

The  proposed  exchange  was  never  effected,  and  the  evils  arising  from 
the  divided  authority  continued.  They  were  illustrated  the  very  next  year, 
for  Rowland  Forster  was  just  as  ineffective  as  ever.  He  roused  the  wrath 
of  Lord  Grey  de  Wilton,  commanding  the  queen's  forces  in  the  north,  by 
the  carelessness  with  which  he  controlled  his  men,  instanced  by  the  way 
some  revellers  from  Cornhill  and  Wark  on  May  Day  managed  to  get  into 
the  castle,  while  the  watch  was  not  being  kept.  As  the  place  was  not  in  the 
queen's  charge.  Lord  Grey  could  do  nothing  but  complain  that  it  was  '  very 
evilly  kept'  and  was  'used  more  like  a  farm  than  a  place  of  strength.'  Yet 
much  of  the  queen's  ordnance  and  some  of  the  royal  gunners  were  there, 

'  Ibid.  p.  347-348.     The  document  is  printed  in  the  Rev.  P.  Meams,  iVark  Castle,  p.  50. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  155 1 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  203. 

'  P.R.O.  State  Papers,  Borders,  Elizabeth,  5.  fol.  103;  Cai.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1561-1562,  p.  409. 

'  Col.  oj  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1561-1562,  p.  409. 

70  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

and  nothing  could  be  done  to  protect  them.  Indeed  one  of  these  gunners 
had  been  dismissed  by  Forster,  and  when  sent  back  by  Lord  Grey  with 
instructions  that  he  was  to  be  replaced,  he  was  assaulted  by  the  captain. 
This  was  too  much,  and  Forster  was  placed  under  arrest.^  The  situation 
was  almost  hopeless.  The  standing  charges  to  the  crown  for  the  garrison 
averaged  £57  15s.  lod.  yearly,  and  there  were  many  other  outgoings,^  yet, 
as  the  marquis  of  Winchester  reported,  'Sir  Ralph  Grey  does  nothing  at 
Wark  but  suffer  it  to  decay.'  ^  The  irrepressible  Rowland  Forster  was  back 
again  in  charge  by  August,  1565,*  but  beyond  trying  to  procure  a  man  to 
coin  '  hardheads '  in  his  house  ^  and  sending  in  an  occasional  requisition  for 
munitions,^  he  did  nothing.  In  1567  his  brother.  Sir  John  Forster,  found 
the  castle  still  'in  great  decay,''  but  three  years  later,  when  Elizabeth  was 
intervening  in  Scottish  politics  on  the  side  of  Lennox,  he  was  galvanized 
into  activity  by  fear  of  a  Scottish  attack.  He  believed  that  the  Scots  were 
making  a  special  kind  of  ladder  to  scale  the  castle,  and  he  demanded  rein- 
forcements, as  he  could  not  defend  it  with  his  existing  forces.  A  hundred 
foot  and  100  horse  were  sent  to  his  assistance,^  but  though  no  attack  came, 
this  unwonted  energy  was  too  much  for  him,  and  he  died  of  the  ague  in 
August.  The  lord  warden  took  upon  himself  to  appoint  a  certain  Captain 
Pikeman  to  take  charge,  but  he  wrote  to  London  for  instructions,  'as  Mr. 
Grey  is  not  able  to  keep  either  the  house  or  the  town  from  spoiling.'  ^ 

Still  the  system  of  divided  responsibility  went  on.  But  the  days  of 
greatest  danger  were  over,  and  border  warfare  was  dying  down.  Wark  felt 
the  reverberations  of  that  last  notable  border  encounter  in  1575  at  the 
Reidswire,  for  a  Scottish  attack  in  the  East  March  was  expected  to  follow. 
Sir  Thomas  Grey,  who  now  owned  the  castle,  was  bidden  to  stand  on  his 
guard  nightly,  and  was  reinforced  by  50  footmen  sent  by  the  lord  warden,^" 
but  the  only  part  that  Wark  was  destined  to  play  in  the  affairs  of  Scotland 

'  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Foreign,  1562,  pp.  128-129,  I43"i44;  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  80,  81. 

*  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Foreign,  1563,  p.  424  ;    1564-1565,  pp.  30,  51,  58,  391. 

»  Ibid.  1564-1565.  p.  135. 

■■  Ibid.  p.  422.  He  seems  to  have  managed  to  secure  a  messuage  and  a  cottage  with  land  and  meadow 
in  Wark  as  a  gift  from  his  employer.  At  least  his  daughter,  Ehzabeth  Orde,  sold  such  a  holding  in  1601 
to  Ralph  Grey,  and  gave  a  warrant  against  the  heirs  of  her  father.     Feet  of  Fines,  i6th  century,  p.  62. 

'  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Domeslic,  1566-1579,  p.  182. 

"  Cal.  of  Stale  Papers,  Foreign,  1566-1568,  pp.  245,  264.  '  Ibid.  pp.  192,  243. 

^  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Domestic,  1566-1579,   pp.    249-250;     Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1569-1571, 
PP-  173.  I97- 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1569-1571,  p,  330.  '"  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1575-1577,  p.  85. 

WARK    CASTLE.  7 1 

for  the  rest  of  the  reign  was  to  afford  a  refuge  in  1584  for  the  earls  of  Mar  and 
Angus  and  other  protestant  leaders,  who,  with  the  English  queen's  approval, 
had  cojispired  against  James  VI. ^  A  small  royal  garrison  was  still  kept 
there,2  ^^d  the  crown  was  responsible  for  munitions.^  In  1594  royal 
ordnance  to  the  extent  of  i  culverin,  3  demi-culverins,  3  sakars,  i  sakrett 
and  base,  all  of  iron,  and  4  falconets  of  brass,  two  of  them  without  wheels, 
one  dismounted  and  one  'with  a  pintle  of  iron,'  lay  there.*  In  the  later  part 
of  the  reign  it  became  the  custom  for  the  crown  to  take  over  all  responsi- 
bility, and  to  relieve  the  Greys  of  all  their  obligations  in  return  for  the 
provision  of  a  lieutenant  and  fifty  men.  Under  these  conditions  the  cost 
to  the  crown  of  keeping  the  garrison  was  estimated  at  £1,703  6s.  8d.  a  year,^ 
but  we  may  well  believe  that  this  sum  was  never  expended.  For  instance 
provision  was  made  for  a  chaplain  and  surgeon  at  i6d.  a  day  each,^  though 
there  is  no  evidence  or  likelihood  that  anyone  acted  in  either  capacity  in  the 
fortress,  which  was  only  fully  manned  in  emergencies.  The  normal  royal 
garrison  was  four  gunners,''  whereas  this  estimate  provides  for  18.® 

The  fabric  of  the  castle,  which  always  had  been  difficult  to  maintain, 
was  allowed  during  these  latter  days  to  deteriorate  even  more  than  formerly. 
In  1571  the  government  was  told  '  Wark  Castle  decays  very  much  daily  '  ^  ; 
the  brewhouse  and  bakehouse  roofs  leaked  alarmingly  in  1577.^  A  report 
on  Norham  and  Wark  in  1580  showed  them  both  to  be  so  ruined  that  'no 
man  dare  dwell  in  them,  and  if  speedy  remedy  be  not  had,  they  will  falle 
flatte  to  the  grounde,'  i"  and  the  commissioners  of  1584  declared  that  it  would 
cost  £800  to  restore  Wark  to  its  original  state,  but  it  might  be  made  fit  to  house 
100  horsemen  for  half  that  sum.^^  Something  in  this  direction  was  begun 
in  1591,  the  original  estimate  being  £500,  'but  as  Mr.  Grey  and  his  tenants 
are  to  help  with  carriage'  it  was  reduced  to  ;^300.i-  Apparently  the  work 
was  carried  on  by  Sir  Henry  Widdrington  and  Ralph  Grey  ,1^  the  latter  of  whom 

'  Cat.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  134. 

-  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1575-1577,  p.  146;  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  8. 

'  Acts  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  xii.  p.  318;  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  233. 

■*  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  537. 

'  Cotton  MS.  Titus  F.  xiii.  fol.  257;  Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  xxxv.  *  Ibid. 

'  Duke  of  Northumberland's  MSS. — Border  Holds,  p.  354. 

*  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1569-1571,  p.  418.  '  Ibid.  1575-1577,  P-  602. 

'"  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  30.  "  Report  of  Commissioners,  1584 — Border  Holds,  p.  72. 

'2  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  372;  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1580-1625,  p.  326. 

"  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  379,  388. 

72  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

had  earlier  come  into  the  property  and  in  1592  wrote  to  Lord  Burghley  that 
he  '  had  finished  the  water  wall,  save  a  little  in  the  basement,  and  had  enough 
stone,  timber  and  other  materials  for  the  rest  of  the  work.'  He  pointed  out 
that  he  had  only  received  £200  of  the  ;^500  which  was  the  valuation  for  the 
work  agreed  to  when  he  was  in  London,  and  asked  for  the  balance,  since 
what  had  already  been  done  was  very  nearly  worth  the  whole  sum.^  Des- 
pite this  cheerful  report,  the  crown  surveyor  two  years  later  found  that  by 
no  means  all  the  work  was  done,^  and  in  1587  another  ^^300  had  to  be  dis- 
bursed for  'the  repairing  of  Warke  Castell.'  ^ 

During  early  Stuart  days  Wark  passed  out  of  the  pages  of  national 
history.  In  1633  what  remained  of  the  royal  ordnance  there  was  removed 
to  Berwick  and  London,*  the  castle  was  once  more  allowed  to  decay,  and  when 
English  troops  were  sent  north  against  the  Covenanters  in  1639,  though 
some  were  stationed  there, ^  Captain  Charles  Lloyd,  sent  to  view  it,  reported 
that  it  was  so  'ruinated'  and  its  circuit  was  so  large,  that  it  would  take 
more  men  to  man  than  it  was  worth.  Strategically,  though  it  commanded 
a  ford,  this  was  of  no  value,  as  there  were  others  both  up  and  down  stream, 
Nothing  therefore  was  done  in  the  way  of  repairs,^  though  it  was  confidently 
believed  that  the  Scots  would  cross  the  Tweed  at  that  point,  as  the  ford 
there  was  by  far  the  most  convenient.  Still,  the  castle  was  slightly  more 
use  than  that  at  Norham  for  instance,'^  and  the  passage  ultimately  chosen 
was  a  little  further  down  stream.  The  men  of  Wark  did  not  have  long  to 
wait  to  see  an  invading  Scottish  army  pass  that  way,  for  a  portion  of  the 
force  which  came  to  help  the  parliamentarians  in  1644  quartered  itself  there 
and  in  the  neighbouring  townships  on  the  night  of  January  19th. ^ 

Thus  does  Wark  pass  from  the  national  history.  The  castle,  so  often 
destroyed  by  men's  hands,  was  allowed  to  fall  slowly  into  decay,  but  as  late 
as  1863  the  tower  at  the  south-west  corner  still  stood,  and  the  north  wall 
was  still  visible  to  the  height  of  several  feet  for  a  hundred  yards  of  its 
length.  But  the  whole  of  the  escarpement  on  which  this  wall  stood  was  then 
gradually  crumbling,  and  a  few  years  earlier  this  had  compelled  the  removal 
of  some  of  the  masonry,  as  it  had  become  dangerous  to  people  crossing  the 
ferry.     It  was  then  also  possible  to  trace  the  eastern  and  western  walls, 

'  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Domestic,  1580-1625,  p.  341.  '  Cat.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  529. 

'  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  307.  *  Cal.  of  Stale  Papers,  Domestic,  1633-1634,  pp.  134,  145,  394. 

^  Ibid.  1639,  pp.  200-201.  »  Ibid.  1639-1640,  pp.  292,  355.  '  Ibid.  1640,  pp.  577,  585. 

'  Letters  of  Colonel  Francis  Anderson — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xxi.  p.  151. 



and  there  were  two  parallel  walls  on  the  west  side  thirty-four  yards  apart, 
half  the  inner  one  being  traceable  only  by  its  foundations.  In  digging  the 
foundation  of  a  boat  house  that  same  year  a  ditch  nine  feet  wide  running 
south-west  from  the  north-west  corner  of  the  wall  close  by  the  Tweed,  and 
a  road  made  of  broken  stones  8  feet  wide  passing  from  the  village  eastwards 
on  the  north  side  of  the  keep  were  found.  A  few  years  earlier  excavations 
conducted  by  Mr.  Richard  Hodgson-Huntley  revealed  a  long  flight  of  stone 
steps  leading  from  the  eastern  side  of  the  keep  to  the  outer  court,  with  a 
portcullis  about  half  way,  and  a  square  pit  about  g  feet  wide  lined  with 

Fig.  3. — W.\rk  Castle  from  the  East,  1920. 

masonry,  descending  nearly  to  the  base  of  the  mound.  Further  a  sewer 
running  from  the  castle  to  the  river,  wide  enough  to  be  used  for  the 
passage  of  men  and  material,  was  disclosed. ^  To-day  the  area  of  the  site 
can  be  easily  traced.  The  position  of  the  wall  dividing  the  outer  and 
inner  baileys  is  clearly  marked,  whilst  the  masonry  of  the  lower  portion 
of  the  shell  keep  or  donjon  still  exists. ^  The  outer  bailey  occupied  the 
low  ground  to  the  east  of  the  site,  wherein  was  the  gatehouse  now  entirely 
destroyed.  At  the  north-east  angle  there  is  still  evidence  of  the  comer 
tower,  which  enclosed  the  angle  of  the  east  curtain  wall,  and  that  on  the 
north  side  by  the  edge  of  the  river.     The  stone  wall  shewn  on  the  sketch 

'  Paper  by  the  Rev.  P.  Mearns  in  Berwickshire  Xaturalists'  Club,  vol.  v.  pp.  65-66. 
Vol.  XI. 

*  See  fig.  3. 

74  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

indicates  the  position  of  the  wall  dividing  the  outer  from  the  inner  bailey. 
The  ascent  from  the  inner  ward  to  the  donjon  was  by  a  stone  stair 
eight  feet  in  width,  placed  within  the  south  curtain.  The  masonry  of  the 
two  lower  storeys  of  the  great  donjon,  in  which  were  many  buildings,  is 
a  prominent  and  crowning  feature.  It  occupies  the  extreme  south-west 
angle  of  the  site,  and  dominates  the  whole.  Its  multangular  sides 
approximate  an  oval  in  general  outline,  and  measure  about  85  by  55 
yards  across  the  axis. 


Situate  just  south  of  Wark,  Learmouth^  has  shared  the  same  vicissi- 
tudes as  its  more  important  neighbour.  When  the  castle  was  attacked, 
the  neighbouring  villages  would  naturally  suffer,  though  at  the  same  time 
the  fortress  would  afford  protection  to  the  inhabitants  if  not  to  their  lands. 
Thus  in  1521  the  Scots  burnt  the  whole  town  and  30  ploughlands  of  corn, 
driving  away  400  head  of  cattle,  2,000  sheep,  4,000  'gate,'  30  geldings  and 
20  prisoners,  'and  burnt  one  honest  woman.'  The  garrison  dared  not  leave 
the  castle  'for  fear  of  betreasing  behind  them,'  and  the  only  method  open 
to  them  was  to  organize  a  retaliatory  raid.^  Again  in  1523  and  1533  raids 
destroyed  much  property  in  the  township.^  Still,  in  1541  it  contained 
'twenty  husbande  landes  well  plenyshed,'  a  larger  area  being  under  culti- 
vation than  in  Wark,  and  the  inhabitants  retired  'all  waies  to  the  castell 
of  Warke  for  their  relefe  in  tyme  of  warre  and  necessytie.'  *  In  prosperous 
times  the  township  was  valued  at  £35  6s.  4d.,^  but  in  days  of  adversity  its 
value  can  have  been  nothing.  Thus  in  1597  'the  Skots  came  to  Lear- 
mowth  to  the  number  of  fouer  and  feftey  hores  men  all  jacke  and  gred,  and 
leyted  in  the  medst  of  the  touen  gatte,  bracke  open  and  foressebley  tocke 
and  refte  away  all  the  town  noett  to  the  nomber  of  120  hed  of  cattell,  and 
2  or  3  and  twenty  nages  and  mears  to  the  otter  ondoeng  of  the  pore  touen, 
if  they  gett  no  redress.'  ^     With  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  these 

1  Earlier,  Leuremue,  Livermue,  Leuermue,  Levermuth,  Levermouth,  Leremouihe.  O.E.lefr-muthAevers- 

raouth,  i.e.  mouth  of  the  river  overgrown  with  levers  or  livers,  a  species  of  yellow  flag.  Cf.  Livermere,  Suflf. 
Or  possibly  the  first  element  is  the  O.E.  Lfo/^eye,  a  personal  name,  hence  'Leofhere's  mouth."  For  another 
name  of  this  type  we  may  compare  Uanflccde  miipe  in  Birch's  Cartularium  (No.  880),  i.e.  Eanfled's  (river-) 
mouth,     -ttme  is  a  common  Anglo-Norman  spelling. 

-  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  794. 

'  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  1450  ;   vol.  vi.  p.  20.  '  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  30. 

'  P.R.O.  Slate  Papers,  Borders,  5,  fol.  108. 

"  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  433-434.     It  had  suffered  severely  in  the  earl  of  Westmorland's  raid 
in  1570.     Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  14. 


excursions  and  alarms  passed  away,  and  Learmouth  settled  down  to  the 
happy  lot  of  a  place  without  a  history,  save  that  in  1678  it  witnessed  an 
affray,  in  which  a  certain  'Mr.  Morley'  was  slain,  caused  by  Scottish 
hostility  to  those  who  were  preparing  on  the  border  to  destroy  the  power 
of  the  Covenanters. 1 

Descent  of  the  Manor. — Learmouth  was  in  early  days  a  member 
of  the  manor  of  Wark,^  but  probably  far  larger  in  population.  In  1296 
thirteen  householders  were  assessed  for  the  lay  subsidy  in  Learmouth  as 
against  five  in  Wark,  and  the  total  value  of  their  goods  was  £31  6s.  8d.,  as 
against  £14  i8s.^  At  some  date  unknown  the  township  was  divided  into 
moieties,  one  being  given  to  the  rectory  of  Ilderton,  and  the  other  remaining 
in  the  hands  of  the  owners  of  Wark. 

Descent  of  the  one  moiety. — The  second  of  these  two  moieties  went  with 
the  Wark  property  till  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  though  on 
one  or  two  occasions  younger  sons  were  provided  with  a  portion  therein. 
Thus  in  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century,  Jordan  Bussey,  the  second  son 
of  Walter  Espec's  sister  and  co-heiress,  Hawise,*  owned  a  toft  and  two 
bovates  of  land  there,  which  he  gave  to  Kirkham  priory,^  and  which  after 
the  Dissolution  found  its  way  into  the  hands  of  the  crown. ^  In  1275 
Wilham  Roos,  younger  son  of  Robert  Roos  of  Wark,  and  a  minor,  seems  to 
have  held  the  vill  on  the  ground  that  his  father  had  enfeoffed  him  just 
before  his  death.  The  guardian  of  Robert  Roos  of  Wark  intervened,  and 
got  a  judgment  in  favour  of  his  ward,  though  William's  friends  thought  it 
worth  their  while  to  prosecute  the  jury  for  having  sworn  a  false  oath."  At 
a  much  later  date  Edward  Grey,  doubtless  a  cadet  of  the  house  of  Wark  and 
Chillingham  which  then  owned  Learmouth,  had  the  mill  there  for  life,  and 
being  a  papist  delinquent,  had  it  sequestrated  by  the  commonwealth  govern- 

After  the  death  of  Ford,  Lord  Grey  and  earl  of  Tankerville,  the  property 
went  to  his  brother,  Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  who  bequeathed  it  with  the  rest  of  his 

'  Newcastle  Public  Library,  Laing  MSS.  vol.  i.  p.  414. 

*  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  p.  390;  P.R.O.  State  Papers,  Borders,  5,  fol.  103. 
3  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  f.  108.        *  Monasticon,  vol.  vi.  pt.  i.  p.  209.       '  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  82. 

*  Ministers  Accounts,  7-8  Elizabeth — Waterford  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  63. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  5,  m.  7  ;  No.  7,  m.  ii  ;    No.  26,  m.  99 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  141-142, 
175,  383  ;  Northttmberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  239. 

'Royalist  Compositions,  pp.  217-218. 


property  in  1705  to  his  nephew,  Henry  Neville,  for  life  and  after  his  decease 
to  his  first  and  tenth  son  successively  in  tail  male,  upon  condition  of  their 
taking  the  name  of  Grey,  and  in  default  of  such  issue  to  his  cousin,  John 
Grey  of  Howick.  Henry  Neville,  alias  Grey,  died  without  issue,  and  the 
estates  to  which  he  succeeded  then  passed  to  Sir  Henry  Grey,  bart.,  eldest 
son  of  the  said  John  Grey  of  Howick,  and  ancestor  of  the  present  Earl  Grey.^ 
The  last  named  has  recently  sold  East  Learmouth  to  Mr.  William  Davidson 
and  West  Eearmouth  to  Mr.  Thomas  Brown. 

Descent  of  the  other  moiety. — When  the  other  moiety  of  Learmouth 
became  part  of  the  endowment  of  the  rectory  of  Ilderton  is  not  known. 
The  first  mention  thereof  is  to  be  found  in  the  grant  of  Carham  to  Sir  Chris- 
topher Hatton,  which  included  a  moiety  of  the  town  of  Learmouth,  parcel 
of  the  rectory  of  Ilderton.  This,  like  Carham,  was  at  once  regranted  to  Sir 
Thomas  Forster,-  in  whose  family  it  still  remained  in  1667.^  There  is 
reason  to  believe  that  it  is  to  be  identified  with  Sunnylaws,  which  in  1623, 
being  the  property  of  Thomas  Carr  of  Ford,  was  sold  by  him  to  his  brother, 
\Mlliam  Carr,  to  whom  his  son  William  and  his  grandson  Thomas  succeeded 
in  turn.'*  We  next  hear  of  Sunnylaws  as  the  property  of  Earl  Grey  and 
together  with  part  of  West  Wark  Common  Farm,  exchanged  by  him 
for  Tithehill  with  the  daughters  of  Anthony  Compton  of  Carham  in  1847. 
Tithehill  had  originally  belonged  to  Earl  Grey's  ancestors,  but  in  1778  it 
had  been  granted  by  Sir  Henry  Grey  to  Ralph  Compton  in  exchange  for 
the  glebe  lands  in  Learmouth,  the  tithe  of  grain  of  the  remainder  of  the 
Learmouth  estate  and  the  hay  tithes  of  Sunnylaws.  Since  1847  Tithe- 
hill has  remained  in  the  Grey  family  and  Sunnylaws  has  continued  part  of 
the  Carham  estate.^ 

Other  landowners. — There  are  a  few  incidental  references  to  others  pos- 
sessing property  in  Learmouth.  The  vill,  and  doubtless  Wark  also,  being 
in  the  hands  of  the  Scots  in  the  days  of  King  Stephen  and  early  in  Henry 
n.'s  reign,  William,  earl  of  Northumberland,  later  King  William  of  Scotland, 
made  a  grant  of  land  in  the  township  to  one  Walter  Butler. **  A  messuage 
and  two  bovates  of  land  were  in  the  later  thirteenth  century  in  the  hands 
of  the  family  of  Eyre  of  Presson,  and  Robert  Eyre  had  in  1291  to  defend 
his  right  to  them  against  the  daughters  and  co-heirs  of  one  Ida  Eyre,  who 

'  Howick  Muniments.  •  Carham  Deeds.  '  Forfeited  Estates  Papers,  F.  25. 

*  Carr  Family,  vol.  ii.  pp.  116-117.  *  Carham  Deeds.     Cf.  p.  28  n.  6.  above. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  8ido.     William  succeeded  his  father  Henry  as  earl  of  Northumberland  in  1 152. 


had  granted  them  to  him.^  Three  hundred  years  later  another  name, 
foreign  to  that  of  the  owners  of  the  township,  appears  in  connection  there- 
with, for  in  1581  and  again  in  1597  there  is  mention  of  John  Selby  of  Lear- 
mouth, ^  though  he  may  have  only  been  a  tenant. 


Descent  of  the  Manor. — Mindrum^  was  a  member  of  the  barony  of  Roos, 
and  after  the  gift  of  the  latter  to  Robert  Roos,  younger  son  of  Robert  Roos, 
early  in  the  thirteenth  centur\-,  '*it  was  held  by  him  of  his  brother,  William.^ 
In  1251  he  was  granted  free  warren  in  his  demesne  lands  there,^  but  it  is  evident 
that  shortly  after  this  the  township  ceased  to  be  kept  in  the  hands  of  the  lord 
of  Wark.  One  Robert  Gargou  was  possibly  the  most  important  man  in  the 
township  and  a  holder  of  lands  there  about  this  time,  since  a  certain  Matilda, 
widow  of  Nicholas  Middleton,  sued  him  in  1266  for  the  possession  of  a 
messuage,  four  bovates  of  land  and  five  acres  of  meadow,  and  her  son  having 
inherited  her  claims,  made  a  similar  attempt  in  1270.''  It  would  seem  that 
he  alienated  at  least  part  of  his  property  to  one  William  Roos,  against  whom 
in  1276  his  widow  Joan  successfully  sought  dower  in  four  messuages  and  four 
bovates  of  land  in  Mindrum.^  This  William  Roos  was  known  as  William  Roos 
of  Downham,  since  in  1293  he  was  so  described  in  a  suit  for  dower  in  one  toft 
and  58  acres  of  land  in  Mindrum  brought  against  him  by  Margery,  widow  of 
Robert,  son  of  Nicholas  of  Mindium.  As  to  two  parts  of  the  above  holding  he 
made  no  defence,  but  with  regard  to  the  third  part  he  asked  for  the  ruling  of 
the  court,  since  it  was  already  held  in  dower  by  Joan  Gargou,  whose  husband 
had  been  seised  of  the  holding  before  Robert,  son  of  Nicholas.^     It  would 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  127,  m.  60 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  pp.  359-361. 

*  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  45 ;  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  346. 

'  Earlier  Minethrtim,  JMindruni,  Alimdrum.     A  Celtic  name  of  which  the  first  part  corresponds  to  Welsh 
inynydd,  a  mountain  {cf.  Long  Jlynd,  Salop),  while  the  second  corresponds  to  Gael.  (ffHJ»«— back,   ridge  ; 
Welsh,  truim.     Hence,  'hill-ridge,'  cf.  Mintridge,  Hereford. 

*  See  page  'j  under  Wark.  Symeon  states  that  'Minethrum'  in  the  valley  of  the  Bowmont  was  given 
by  King  Osv  'u  to  St.  Cuthbert  on  the  latter  having  seen  a  vision  of  St.  Aidan  being  received  up  into  heaven 
Symeon'  Monachi  Opera  Omnia.  Rolls  Series,  No.  75,  vol.  i.  pp.  106-7.)  This  obviously  refers  to  Mindrum, 
but  I'i!  statement  is  probably  not  true  in  fact  and  certainly  not  in  detail,  as  St.  Aidan  outhved  Oswin  by 
12  '.layv. 

*  Testa  de  Xevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211.  '  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  374. 
'  Curia  Regis  Roll  and  De  Banco  Rolls — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxi.,  p.  405  ;   vol.  xxvi.  pp.  69,  137. 

'  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  15,  m.  62do  ;  No.  17,  m.  48 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  282,  295-296.  In 
1291  she  accused  Robert  Penbury  and  Christine  his  wife  of  disseising  her  of  tenements  in  Mindrum.  Coram 
Rege  Roll,  No.  127,  m.  56 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  325. 

"  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  195-196. 

78  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

seem  therefore  that  part  of  Robert  Gargou's  lands  had  gone  to  Robert,  son 
of  Nicholas,  but  had  now  passed  to  William  Roos. 

This  William  Roos  had  seemingly  inherited  lands  in  the  township  from 
his  father,  William  Roos,  for  in  1269  an  order  had  been  issued  to  inquire 
whether  William,  father  of  William  Roos,  had  been  seised  of  three  messuages, 
six  bovates  and  six  acres  of  land  and  a  penny  of  rent  in  Mindrum,  which 
Robert,  son  of  Robert  Roos,  was  then  holding,^  and  in  1271  William  Roos 
had  arraigned  an  assize  of  mort  d' ancestor  against  Robert  Roos  concerning 
four  tofts,  six  bovates  and  11  acres  of  land  and  12  acres  of  pasture,^  probably 
part  of  the  same  inheritance.  The  supposition  is,  that  the  elder  William 
Roos  here  mentioned,  William  Roos  of  Mindrum  as  he  is  elsewhere  called,^ 
was  a  younger  son  of  the  Robert  Roos  who  was  given  Wark  by  his  father 
and  died  in  1274,*  and  therefore  to  be  identified  with  the  Wilham  Roos  who 
claimed  Learmouth  in  1275.^  He  held  the  manor  of  Mindrum,^  and  his  son 
William  Roos  of  Downham,  increased  the  family  holding.  To  this  he  added 
another  messuage  and  five  bovates  of  land,  which  Robert  of  Downham  had 
originally  leased  for  eight  years  to  Christine,  mother  of  William  Roos. 
Christine  transferred  this  lease  to  her  son,  and  Robert  quitclaimed  all  his 
right  therein  to  him,''  his  holding  being  yet  further  augmented  in  1294  when 
Christine,  who  seems  to  have  held  lands  in  her  own  right,  conveyed  to  her 
son  a  messuage,  two  carucates  of  land  and  £17  rent  in  the  township.*     At 

1  Cal.  of  Inq.  Miscellaneous  vol.  i.  p.  129. 

-  Patent  Roll,  56  Hen.  III.  m.  i3do. — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  pp.  543-544.  This  document  is 
not  traceable  in  the  Calendar  of  the  Patent  Rolls. 

'  In  1279  there  is  a  reference  to  Wilham,  son  of  William  Roos  of  Mindrum.  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties, 
7-9  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  p.  123. 

*  This  supposition  is  based  on  the  fact  that  in  1293  William  Roos  of  Downham  stated  his  parentage  in 
a  suit  which  he  brought  against  Margaret,  widow  of  Robert  Roos  of  Wark,  for  the  manor  of  Plenmeller  in 
Haltwhistle.     He  there  claimed  to  be  grandson  and  heir  of  Robert  Roos  of  Wark  by  the  following  descent 

Robert  Roos  of  Wark  = 

= William,  son  and  heir. 

Robert,  son  and  heir,  d.s.p.  William  Roos  of  Downham. 

{Assize  Rolls,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  p.  28;  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  102,  m.  i64do. — Ibid.  vol. 
xxviii.  p.  66).  If  we  allow  that  he  was  mistaken  in  naming  his  father  as  'son  and  heir'  to  Robert  Roos,  and 
this  is  supported  by  Margaret's  answer  that  she  held  the  manor  in  dower  as  of  the  inheritance  of  her  son 
Robert,  this  estabUshes  the  relationship  of  Wilham  Roos  of  Downham  beyond  question. 

'  See  page  75. 

•  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  no,  m.  i83do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  181. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  91,  m.  253do  ;    No.  97,  m.  291 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .xxvii.  p.  6ii  ;    vol.  xxviii. 
pp.  45-46;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Ibid.  vol.  xviii.  pp.  3-4. 

*  Pedes  Finium,  22  Edw.  I.  No.  37 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  vi.  pp.  112-1:3. 


the  same  time,  under  the  title  of  Christine  Roos  of  Mindrum,  she  prosecuted 
Robert  Roos  of  Wark  and  Laura,  his  wife,  together  with  many  others  for 
trespass. 1  Her  son,  who  held  the  manor,  was  also  in  controversy  with  his 
cousin  of  Wark.^  The  latter  had  recently  secured  confirmation  of  his  claim 
to  infangenthef  in  Mindrum  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  member  of  his 
manor  of  Wark,^  but  when,  on  the  strength  of  this,  he  had  summoned  the 
free  tenants  and  the  reeve  and  men  of  the  vill  to  attend  his  manor  court 
to  judge  robbers  captured  within  his  liberty,  they  had  refused  to  attend. 
On  three  specific  occasions  in  1293  these  summons  went  forth,  and  the  vill 
was  fined  for  disobedience  thereto.  As  passive  resistance  still  continued 
and  the  fines  were  not  paid,  the  lord  of  Wark  sent  his  servants  to  distrain, 
and  they  seized  three  oxen  on  the  first  occasion  and  two  oxen  on  each  of  the 
two  subsequent  occasions,  the  cattle  being  taken  from  Horse  Rigg,  a  name 
which  still  survives  on  the  ordnance  survey.  William  Roos  promptly  sued 
his  cousin  for  damages,  asserting  that  his  father  had  held  the  manor  free 
of  all  suit  at  the  manorial  court  of  Wark,  and  that  only  when  Robert  had 
seized  the  vill  on  the  elder  William's  death  and  had  wrongfully  dispossessed 
the  present  plaintiff  till  compelled  to  restore  it  by  the  courts,  was  this  service 
exacted,  and  that  then  it  was  based  on  unlawful  possession  of  the  manor 
of  Mindrum.*  The  case  was  never  decided,  as  it  was  still  suh  judice  when 
Robert  Roos  became  a  traitor  in  the  following  year,^  and  when  Wark  was 
granted  by  the  crown  to  William  Roos  of  Helmsley,  most  of  the  liberties 
formerly  pertaining  to  the  lordship  of  Wark  were  not  included  in  the  gift,® 
but  it  had  served  the  purpose  of  putting  on  record  the  title  of  William  Roos 
of  Downham  to  the  manor  of  Mindrum." 

1  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  141,  m.  20 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  559. 

^  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  106,  m.  128 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii,  pp.  iio-iii. 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  390-391. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  no,  m.  i83do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  pp.  179-1S2. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  112,  m.  i28do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  225.  ^  See   pages   35-36. 
'  Three  separate  holdings  in  Mindrum  were  held  by  religious  corporations.     The   Knights  Templars 

must  have  owned  land  there,  probably  the  gift  of  the  Robert  Roos  who  entered  the  order,  for  during  the 
Quo  Warranto  inquiries  the  master  claimed  infangenthef  and  utfangenthef,  goods  of  felons,  gallows,  the 
control  of  the  assize  of  beer  and  freedom  for  himself  and  for  his  men  in  the  vHU  from  all  suit  of  court  and 
tolls.  Counsel  for  the  crown  tried  to  prove  that  the  charter  of  1252,  under  which  the  claim  was  made,  was 
granted  before  these  lands  were  acquired,  but  the  jury  found  for  the  master  except  in  the  cases  of  infangenthef 
utfangenthef  and  goods  of  felons  (Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iu.  vol.  i.  pp.  167-168  ;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. 
— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  424-425).  Some  small  holding  was  probably  owned  by  the  priorj'  of 
Kirkham,  as  in  1565  certain  property,  once  parcel  of  that  monastery,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  cro-nm  (Ministers 
Accounts,  7-8  Elizabeth — Waterford  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  63),  though  this  may  possibly  only  have  reference 
to  the  tithes.  The  mill  of  Mindrum  was  undoubtedly  the  property  of  the  hospital  of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton, 
having  been  given  thereto  by  Robert  Roos  when  he  founded  that  house  about  1225  {Monasticoti,  pt.  vi.  vol.  ii. 
p.  692;  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  56),  with  the  right  to  enforce  suit  thereat  from  certain  lands  in 
Downham.     (See  page  84). 

8o  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

What  became  of  the  property  after  1296  is  not  known,  though  we  may 
guess  that  ^\'i^iam  left  two  daughters  and  co-heiresses,  since  tlie  township 
became  divided  into  moieties.  One  of  these  appears  in  1331  in  the 
hands  of  Richard  Emeldon,^  who  burdened  it,  together  with  his  lands  in 
Wooler  and  Newcastle,  with  a  rent  of  40s.  in  favour  of  Thomas  Bamburgh, 
clerk, 2  the  master  of  Bolton  hospital  and  in  that  capacity  owner  of  Mindrum 
mill. 2  Emcldon  was  killed  in  the  king's  service  at  the  battle  of 
Halidon  Hill,*  and  his  estate  in  Mindrum,  described  as  'within  the 
manor  of  Wark  on  Tweed,'  consisted  of  a  capital  messuage  100  acres  of 
land,  part  of  which  was  lying  waste,  3  acres  i  rood  of  meadow,  and  13I 
bondages,  each  of  which  contained  a  toft  and  24  acres.  This  was  held 
of  Sir  William  Montague  as  of  the  castle  of  Wark-on-Tweed  by 
service  of  a  moiety  of  a  sparrowhawk  yearly  or  6d.  at  midsummer.^ 
It  would  seem  therefore  that  the  claim  to  infangenthef  in  and  suit 
from  the  tenants  of  Mindrum  formerly  made  by  the  lord  of  Wark 
had  been  justified,  and  that  originally  William  Roos  of  Mindrum  had  been 
enfeoffed  with  the  vill  for  a  nominal  rent,  which,  when  the  property  had 
been  split  up,  had  been  converted  into  a  small  money  contribution.  Richard 
Emeldon's  heirs  were  three  daughters,  Agnes,  wife  of  Adam  Graper,  aged 
27,  Maud,  wife  of  Richard  Acton,  aged  23,  and  Jane,  unmarried  and,  as  she 
was  only  nine,  in  the  wardship  of  the  crown,  since  her  father  had  held  some 
of  his  lands  in  chief.  Thus  the  '  moiety  of  the  town  of  Mindrum '  was  divided 
up  between  the  widow,  Christine,  who  got  her  third  in  dower,  and  the  three 
daughters,  who  each  got  a  third  part  of  two  parts,  with  reversion  of  a  third 
of  the  dower.®  Jane  probably  married  in  1340,  as  an  inquest  to  discover 
her  age  was  then  held,'  and  in  1342  her  inheritance  was  delivered  to  her  and 
Alan  Clavering  her  husband.^  The  fate  of  these  three  shares  cannot  be 
traced  with  any  certainty.  In  1335  that  of  the  second  daughter,  Maud, 
was  settled  on  her  and  her  husband  for  their  lives  with  reversion  to  their 
only  daughter,  Elizabeth,  and  her  husband,  Gerard  Widerington,  and  the 

'  P.R.O.  Inq.  A.Q.T).  File  ccxviii.  No.  8. 

•  Assize  Rolls,  Divers  Counties,  g  Edw.  III. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  345-346. 
'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  287,  m.  164 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxiii.  pp.  202-207. 

*  Cat.  of  Close  Rolls,  1333-1337,  p.  200.  '  Cal.  0/  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vii.  p.  396. 
'  Ibid.  vol.  vii.  pp.  370-371  ;    Cal.  0/  Close  Rolls,  1333-1337,  pp.  238-239,  325. 

'  Chancery  Inquisitions,  Edw.  III.  File  63 — Arch.  Aeliana,  3rd  series,  vol.  iii.  p.  305. 
'  Cal.  oj  Close  Rolls,  1341-1343,  p.  484. 

.    MINDRUM    TOWNSHIP.  8l 

heirs  of  their  bodies,  save  that  the  portion  which  formed  Christine  Emeldon's 
dower  was  at  her  death  to  go  to  John  of  Stannington,  chaplain,  the  plaintiff 
in  both  the  fines  whereby  these  arrangements  were  made.^  The  share  of 
the  third  daughter,  Jane,  was  not  included  in  the  settlement  of  her  estates 
made  in  1361  after  she  had  married  her  second  husband,  Sir  John  Stry- 
velyn,2  but  already  had  been  sold  to  John  Coupland,^  a  great  buyer  of  Glendale 
property,  who  had  already  in  1348  bought  from  one  Thomas  Archer  the 
reversion  of  a  moiety  of  the  manor,  held  by  Thomas  Heton  and  Christine  his 
wife,  in  dower.*  This  last  probably  represents  the  moiety  of  the  manor  which 
Richard  Emeldon  had  not  owned,  since  there  is  no  trace  of  a  Christine  among 
the  widows  of  his  immediate  descendants,^  and  we  know  that  in  the  neigh- 
bouring township  of  Downham  certain  land  once  held  by  William  Roos  was 
held  in  1309  by  a  certain  John  Archer,  whose  son  Robert  had  succeeded  to 
it  by  1332.^  We  may  well  suppose  that  Coupland  bought  up  all  the  other 
parcels  of  the  manor,  including  the  reversion  of  the  dower  of  Christine 
Emeldon,  who,  having  married  William  Plumpton,  died  in  1364.''  At  any 
rate  his  widow,  Joan  Coupland,  owned  the  whole  manor  in  1365,^  and  in  1372 
conveyed  it  to  trustees  to  the  use  of  Sir  Richard  Arundel.^  Sir  John  Arundel 
at  the  time  of  his  death  in  1380  held  the  manors  of  Mindrum  and  Presson 
together  of  the  lord  of  Wark  by  knight  and  other  services,  property  then 
valueless  and  deserted  because  Scottish  ravagers  had  driven  all  the  inhabi- 
tants away,  but  in  the  past  worth  £27  13s.  lod.^"  Mindrum  was  probably 
sold  to  the  Greys  with  Wooler  in  1408,  for  Sir  Ralph  Grey,  who  died  in  1443, 
held  it,  waste  and  desolate  still,  'in  socage  as  of  the  lordship  of  Wark.'^^ 
Meanwhile  a  portion  of  the  township  had  belonged  to  the  Ogle  family,  for 
in  1435  Sir  Robert  Ogle  gave  to  his  son  John  two  tenements  and  two  husband- 

'  Pedes  Fimum,  g  Edw.  III.  Nos.  37,  38 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxi.x.  pp.  83-88. 

'  See  Mr.   Dendy's  Jesmond  {Arch.  Aeliana,  3rd  series,  vol.  i.  p.  99)  for  the  terms  of  this  deed.     The 
omission  of  Mindrum  is  not  there  mentioned. 

'  In  1362  John  Coupland  was  involved  in  a  plea  of  agreement  with  Sir  John  Stryvelyn  and  Jane  his  wife 
concerning  a  sixth  part  of  the  manor  of  Mindrum.     De  Banco  Roll,  No.  409,  m.  lyido. 

*  Pedes  Finium,  22  Edw.  III.  No.  87— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  186-188.      Cf.  De  Banco  Roll, 
No.  355,  m.  i86do. 

'  See  Mr.  Dendy's  Jesmond  passim.  *  See  page  84. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  38  Edw.  III.  No.  36 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  82. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276. 

»  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,   1369-1374,  p.  448.     Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137.     Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxix.  pp.  312-315. 

">  Inq.  p.m.  13  Ric.  II.  No.  I — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-45. 

"  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  file  iii. 

Vol.  XI.  "• 


lands, ^  and  himself  died  a  year  later  seized  of  48  acres  of  land  there. ^  As 
this  land  is  not  traceable  among  John  Ogle's  possessions  when  they  were 
conveyed  to  trustees  in  1460,^  it  had  evidently  by  then  passed  from  the 
family,  probably  to  the  Greys.  At  any  rate,  in  1541  the  whole  township 
containing  16  husbandlands  was  '  of  thinherytaunce  of  Graye  of  Chillingham,' 
and  just  as  open  to  Scottish  attack  as  in  1443,  for  owing  to  the  absence 
of  tower  or  barmekin  '  in  every  apparence  of  a  troublous  worlde  or  warre  yt 
ys  abandoned  and  left  waste  as  an  easye  praye  for  enemy es  to  overrone.'  * 
At  the  moment  it  was  in  a  flourishing  condition,^  but  its  defenceless  state 
was  exemplified  later  in  that  same  year,  when  a  Scottish  raid  of  some  60  or 
80  light  horsemen  spoiled  and  burnt  the  place. ^  The  commissioners  of  1550 
were  still  more  struck  by  the  defencelessness  of  this  border  township 
on  the  banks  of  Bowmont  with  its  very  fertile  soil,  lying  as  it  did 
'  in  the  high  strete  and  waye,  whereby  the  Scottes  passe  and  repasse 
into  those  merches  of  Englande.'  They  recommended  the  building 
there  of  a  strong  tower  with  stables  beneath  and  a  dwelling  place 
above  after  the  fashion  of  Lord  Dacre's  tower  at  Rockliff  in  Cumber- 
land, with  a  large  barmkin  round  it  for  the  protection  of  cattle.  This, 
with  two  watch  towers  on  either  side  of  it  on  Haddon  Law  and  Tevers- 
heughe  to  give  notice  of  an  attack,  would  go  far  towards  protecting  this 
vulnerable  part  of  the  border  between  Cheviot  and  Wark,  'and  wolde  cause 
that  sondry  vyllages  wasted  by  warres  and  lieng  long  tyme  uninhabited 
to  be  repeopled  and  plenyshed,  which  were  a  great  strengthe  to  those 
borders.'  "^  It  was  necessary  too  for  protecting  the  boundaries  of  the  town- 
ship, for  the  Scots  even  in  time  of  peace  claimed  a  strip  of  land  in  Chapman 
Dean  and  a  considerable  stretch  of  pasture  just  where  Mindrum  joined 
Shotton.^  It  may  be  that  something  was  done  in  1584,  for  in  Christopher 
Dacre's  'Plat,'  drawn  in  1584,  a  tower  is  marked  as  standing  there. ^ 

Probably  Mindrum  was  repopulated  after  these  reports,  as  we  hear  no 
more  of  raids  there  after  this  time.  Early  in  1570,  after  the  failure  of  the 
northern  rebellion  of  1569  and  before  the  aftermath  thereof  led  by  Dacre,  the 

'  Ogle  and  Bothal,  App.  No.  164.  =  Inq.  p.m.  15  Hen.  VI.  No.  56 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  li.  p.  273. 

'  Ogle  and  Bothal,  App.  No.  167.  *  Survey  of  the  Border,  154I1 — Border  Holds,  p.  31. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xvi.  p.  478. 

'  Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  107 ;  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xvi.  p.  589. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1550 — Border  Holds,  pp.  51-52. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  218. 

•  Plat  of  Castles,  1584 — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79. 


earl  of  Northumberland,  who  had  escaped  to  Scotland,  brought  a  party  of  Scots 
over  and  carried  off  5,000  sheep  and  140  head  of  cattle  after  burning  the  com 
and  hay  which  belonged  to  Rowland  Forster.^       The  latter,   doubtless  as 
captain  of  Wark,  had  been  given  a  lease  of  these  lands  by  Sir  Thomas  Grey, 
who  in  his  will  dated  December  20th,  1589,  bequeathed  a  life  interest  in  the 
township  to  his  brother  Edward.-     Before  this  bequest  became  operative 
two  hundred  thieves  of  Liddesdale  descended  upon  the  place  with  its  barns 
and  corn,  slew  the  cattle  and  carried  off  goods  valued  at  £300  or  £400,  and 
negotiations  for  an  indemnity  for  this  outrage  dragged  on  for  more  than  a 
year.^     A  similar  predatory  expedition  secured  30  head  of  cattle  in  1594,'* 
and  two  years  later  another,  consisting  of  50  horse  from  Teviotdale,  carried 
off  20  horses  and  60  head  of  cattle  in  broad  daylight.^     Nothing  but  reprisals 
of  a  similar  kind  would  keep  these  thieves  from  continuing  their  depredations, 
declared  the  lord  warden,^  and  so  thoroughly  was  the  district  terrorized, 
that  the  men  of  Mindrum  gladly  paid  the  laird  of  Cessford  blackmail  to  be 
freed  from  these  constant  visitations.''     Mindrum  remained  in  the  hands 
of  the  Greys  and  of  their  heirs,  the  earls  of  Tankerville,  till  1913,  when  Min- 
drum Farm  was  sold  to  Mr.  Bell  of  Shidlaw,  Mindrum  Mill  to  Mr.  Alexander 
Borthwick,  and  the  farm  of  Hagg  to  Mr.  C.  Rand.^ 


Descent  of  the  Manor. — From  the  earliest  times  of  which  we  know 
down  to  the  close  of  the  middle  ages,  Downham^  was  closely  associated  with  its 
neighbour,  Mindrum.  A  member  of  the  barony  of  Roos,  it  passed  therewith 
about  1226  to  Robert  Roos  of  Wark,^"  who,  thirt}'  years  later,  was  threatened 
by  Nicholas  Middleton  with  an  action  under  a  writ  of  mort  d' ancestor  for  a  third 

'  Cal.  oj  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1569-1571,  pp.  178,  185-186.  '  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  172. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  342,  344,  355,  388 ;  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Scotland,  vol.  ii.  p.  578.  This 
raid  must  have  taken  place  before  llarch,  1589,  when  it  was  tiie  subject  of  complaint  at  a  Warden  Court 
held  hard  by  at  Stawford.  The  record  of  the  proceedings  at  this  court  is  printed  in  Berwickshire  Naturalists' 
Club,  vol.  xxi.  pp.  272-275. 

*  Hist.  AISS.  Rep.  Cecil,  vol.  iv.  p.  553  ;   Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  535. 

=  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  154.  «  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  157.  '  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  214. 

'  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xxii.  p.  306. 

'Earlier   Dunum,    Dunhum,    Downeham.     O.E.    dun-ham  =  iown   or   hill-homestead  or,  less  probably 
(al  thasm)dunum  —  [a.\.  the)  hills. 

'"  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211.  Robert  Roos  was  given  free  warren  in  his  demesne 
lands  there  in  1251  (Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  374),  and  his  grandson  successfully  claimed  infangenthef 
in  the  vill  as  a  member  of  his  manor  of  Wark.  {Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  134  ;  Assize  Roll, 
21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  390-391.) 


of  the  manor,  though  it  never  came  to  trial. ^  He  seems  to  have  enfeoffed  his 
younger  son,  WilUam  of  Mindrum,  with  it,  for  this  WilUam's  son,  Wilham  of 
Downham,  claimed  a  messuage,  three  carucates  of  land  and  12  acres  of  meadow, 
as  his  father's  inheritance.-  The  last  named  came  into  conflict  with  his  overlord 
of  Wark  on  the  question  of  service  due  from  Downham  in  1294,^  just  as  he 
did  over  his  lands  in  Mindrum,  and  was  living  at  Downham  in  1296,  indeed 
he  was  the  onl}^  inhabitant  assessed  for  the  subsidy  of  that  year,  his  goods 
being  then  valued  at  ^^19  8s.  4d.*  It  is  obvious  that  then,  as  now,  Downham 
was  no  more  than  a  homestead,  but  that  the  owner  of  Mindrum  lived  there 
on  the  sheltered  ridge  protected  from  the  northern  winds,  and  looking  down 
on  Bowmont  water  flowing  past  beneath. 

We  have  no  definite  evidence  of  what  became  of  the  propert}'  after  the 
death  of  William  Roos  of  Downham,  but  the  supposition  that  he  left  two 
co-heiresses,  which  the  records  of  Mindrum  suggest,  is  strengthened  by 
what  we  know  of  the  devolution  of  two  carucates  of  land  in  the  township, 
from  which  suit  was  due  to  Mindrum  mill.  In  1290  the  master  of  the  hospital 
of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton,  as  owner  of  the  mill,  called  on  William  Roos  of 
Downham  to  do  suit  of  all  corn  growing  on  this  land,  on  the  ground  that  it 
had  been  given  to  one  of  his  predecessors  by  Robert  Roos,  whose  grandson 
and  heir  William  Roos  was,  and  after  four  years  litigation  a  jury  found  in 
his  favour.^  In  1309  the  master  again  found  himself  compelled  to  assert 
his  rights  and  on  this  occasion  the  two  carucates  were  held  by  John  Archer 
and  Master  Walter  Wetewange  and  Joan  his  wife,^  the  supposition  being  that 
Archer  had  married  one  co-heiress,  who  was  now  dead,  and  that  Joan  was 
the  other  co-heiress.  When  once  again  the  master  had  to  assert  the  claims 
of  his  house  in  1320,  the  defendants  were  Robert,  son  of  John  Archer,  and 
John  of  Denum,  knight,  the  last  of  whom  had  died  by  1332,  when  his  pro- 

1  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Society),  p.  33. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  Miscellaneous,  vol.  i.  p.  129;  Patent  Roll,  56  Hen.  III.  m.  i3do. — Bain,  Cal.  of  Docu- 
ments, vol.  i.  pp.  543-544.     For  the  relationship  of  these  two  Williams  see  page  78  n.  4. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  105,  m.  56do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  p.  98. 

*  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  105. 

'  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  80,  m.  131  ;  No.  81,  m.  4odo  ;  No.  86,  m.  190  ;  No.  91,  ni.  91  ;  No.  96,  m.  87. 
— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  384,  400,  492-493,  587 ;  vol.  xxviii.  p.  23 ;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Ibid. 
vol.  xviii.  pp.  3-4.  If  the  statement  of  the  master  is  to  be  taken  as  accurate,  the  gift  was  made  by  Robert 
Roos  of  Wark  to  the  institution  founded  by  his  father.  WiUiam  was,  of  course,  not  his  grandfather's  heir 
as  he  descended  from  a  younger  son,  but  it  is  strange  that  he  himself  on  another  occasion  described  his 
father  as  son  and  heir  of  Robert  Roos.     See  page  78  n.  4. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  195,  m.  74do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  81-83;  Placitorum  Abbreviatio 
— Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  354. 


perty  belonged  to  Robert  Musgrave  of  Newcastle. ^  Thus,  if  our  suggestion 
is  true,  one  moiety  of  Downham  passed  directly  in  the  family  of  Archer,  the 
other  from  Wetewang  to  Denum  and  thence  to  Musgrave.  So  far  as  this 
second  moiety  is  concerned,  some  confirmation  is  found  in  the  fact  that  in 
1324  the  manor  of  Downham  was  settled  on  John,  son  of  Adam  of  Denum 
and  Joan  his  wife,  for  their  lives,  with  successive  remainders  in  tail  to 
Thomas,  Richard  and  Constance,  children  of  John  and  Joan,-  though  the 
entail  must  have  been  cut  by  1332  to  enable  Musgrave  to  purchase,  unless 
by  any  chance  Thomas  and  Richard  were  both  dead  and  Musgrave  had 
married  Constance. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century  to  well  on  into  the 
sixteenth  century  even  supposition  as  to  the  ownership  of  Down- 
ham fails  us.  Possibly  it  lay  waste,  at  any  rate  it  was  in  this  state 
when  bought  by  that  militant  priest.  Sir  Cuthbert  Ogle,  who  proceeded 
to  build  a  new  tower,  which  in  1541  had  been  completed  up  to  the 
second  floor,  but  was  to  have  in  addition  another  storey  with  embattle- 
ments  and  a  barmkin  around  it.  Sir  Cuthbert  seems  to  have  lived 
there,  and  finding  that  two  of  the  original  eight  husbandlands  were 
sufficient  for  his  needs,  he  did  not  bring  the  rest  back  to  cultivation, 
but  kept  them  laid  down  in  grass  for  his  cattle.^  From  this  owner  the 
township  passed  to  Luke  Ogle  of  Eglingham,  who  is  said  to  have  held  it 
in  capite  in  1568,*  and  who  in  1590  prosecuted  Katharine  Hewine,  alias 
Foster,  widow,  for  forcibl}'  entering  his  close  there  and  depasturing  cattle 
thereon,^  and  further  sued  her  for  the  lands  late  belonging  to  Cuthbert 
Ogle  in  Downham. "^  This  same  Luke  Ogle  had  reason  in  1596  to  bless  his 
predecessor's  work  in  building  the  tower,  when  about  9  o'clock  on  the  night 
of  October  20th  the  Scots  swooped  down  on  the  isolated  homestead.  They 
hewed  up  the  gate  of  the  barmkin  with  axes,  '  which  helde  them  tyll  cock- 
crowe  in  the  morninge,'  and  the  defence  offered  was  such  that  they  went 

1  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  287,  m.  164 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxiii.  pp.  202-207. 

2  Pedes  Finium,  18  Edw.  II.  No.  69.  Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xii.  pp.  105-106.  In  1320  Robert 
Coventn-  and  Emma  his  wife  conveyed  the  manor  of  '  Denum,'  saving  5s.  rent  to  William,  son  of  William 
of  Denum,  and  his  heirs  and  the  excepted  rent  to  John  of  Denum  {Pedes  Finium,  13  Edw.  II.  Nos.  42,  43. 
Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xii.  pp.  66,  67).  It  is  probable  that  in  spite  of  the  coincidence  of  name,  'Denum' 
stands  for  Deanham  in  Hartburn. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  31. 

*  Liber  Feodarii,  1586 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Lxx. 

'  P.R.O.  Exchequer  Plea  Rolls,  32-33  EUz.  Michaelmas  m.  28do,   33  Eliz.  Hilary,  m.  7do. 

'  P.R.O.  Court  oj  Requests,  Temp.  Eliz.  Bundle,  xcii.  No.  28. 


off  empty  handed  to  wreak  their  anger  on  Branxton.^  This  man's  grandson, 
also  called  Luke,  wliu  died  in  October,  1604,  was  by  the  first  inquest  held 
after  his  death  said  to  liave  died  seised  of  Downham,  held  of  the  king  in  free 
socage  as  of  his  manor  of  Tynemouth,  his  son  and  heir  being  Harry  Ogle, 
aged  4i  years.-  If  the  statement  on  the  tenure  here  be  true,  the  transference 
of  a  township  from  being  a  member  of  the  manor  of  Wark  to  being  one  of  the 
manor  of  Tynemouth  is  quite  inexplicable,  but  a  second  inquest,  ordered 
owing  to  the  inefficiency  of  the  last  one,  makes  things  still  more  complicated 
by  finding  that  in  1600  Luke  Ogle  had  sold  Downham  to  Ralph  Carr.^  This 
last  statement  cannot  be  accepted,  for  in  the  rate  book  of  1663  Henry  Ogle 
is  recorded  as  holding  Downham,  but  from  another  version  of  the  same 
record  it  seems  that,  though  in  occupation,  he  had  made  over  the  property 
to  his  son  John,*  possibly  for  fear  of  being  dispossessed  as  a  parliamentarian 
by  the  triumphant  royalists.^  By  1673  Henry  Ogle  was  dead,  and  John 
Ogle  joined  with  his  son  Henry  in  selling  the  property  to  William,  Lord  Grey 
of  Wark.®  It  passed  ultimately  to  Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  after  whose  death  in 
1706  it  was  sold  for  £2,550.''  It  seems  to  have  been  repurchased  by  Henry 
Neville,  to  whom  the  last  Lord  Grey  had  left  his  property,  and  from  him 
it  passed  under  the  terms  of  the  latter's  will  to  Sir  Henry  Grey,  bart., 
the  ancestor  of  the  present  owner.  Earl  Grey.^ 


Moneylaws^  was  a  member  of  the  barony  of  Roos,  held  in  chief  originally 
by  Walter  Espec,  from  whom  it  passed  to  the  Roos  family.^"  Though  Robert 
Roos  was  given  free  warren  in  his  demesne  lands  in  Moneylaws  in  1251,^^ 
and  his  grandson  successfully  claimed  infangenthef  there  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  a  member  of  his  manor  of  Wark,^^  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  whole  town- 
ship was  subinfeudated. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  187,  213.  '  Inq.  p.m. — Ogle  and  Bothal,  App.  No.  212. 

'  Ibid.  No.  214.         *  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.i  ii.  vol.  i.  pp.  277, 342.         '  Ogle  and  Bothal,  p.  376. 

'  Lease  and  Release — Ogle  and  Bothal,  App.  No.  775.  '  Ewart  Park  MSS.  '  Hawick  Muniments. 

'  Earlier  Menilawe,  Manilawe,  Manylawe,  Menilaw,  Manlaw,  Monilawe,  Monylaw{e)s,  Moneylawes, 
Mannylawes.  '  Many-hills '  cf.  O.E.  manig,  monig,  menig  =  many.  For  such  a  name  cj.  O.E.  the  manige  hyllan 
(Birch,  No.  808)  =((/»»)  many  hills,  Monyash,  Derbyshire,  earlier  Manyashe,  Monej'hall,  Staffordshire  (earlier 
Monhuile,  Monihills),  and  lez  Mony-laws  in  Heugh  (Black  Book  oj  Hexham). 

'»  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211.  i'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  374. 

"Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  134-136;  Assize  Roll.  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol  xviii.  pp.  390-391. 


Descent  of  the  Manor. — The  earliest  tenant  of  the  barony  of  whom  we 
hear  was  Wilham  Batayle,  who  seems  to  have  held  one  toft  and  12  acres  of 
land  in  Moneylaws,  and  to  have  alienated  them  to  John  Prendlate  or  Pren- 
drelath  as  the  name  occurs  most  often.  In  1256  Robert  Batayle,  William's 
nephew  and  heir,i  claimed  the  property,  but  agreed  to  quitclaim  his  right  to 
Prendrelath.-  The  last  named  held  other  property  in  the  township,  for  in 
1271  a  certain  John  le  Rus  sued  him  for  six  marks  and  also  sought  an  order 
of  the  court  to  compel  him  to  keep  an  agreement  made  between  them 
concerning  a  mill  in  Moneylaws.^  By  1291  John  Prendrelath  was  dead, 
and  so  also  was  his  successor,  probably  a  son,  Nicholas  Prendrelath.  The 
latter's  heir  was  his  daughter,  Joan,  about  whose  wardship  there  was  some 
difficulty,  as  Robert  Roos  had  sold  it  to  John  Vescy,  whose  executors  wished 
for  an  inquiry  as  to  the  lady's  position.  An  inquest,  held  in  August,  1292, 
established  the  fact  that  Joan  held  a  tenement  in  Moneylaws  by  knight's 
service  and  was  her  father's  next  heir,  legitimate  and  of  full  age.*  She  had 
married  John  Wischard,^  a  Scot  by  nationality,  hailing  from  the  Carse,^  who 
in  1296  had  an  establishment  in  Moneylaws,  being  assessed  on  £6 
for  the  subsidy  of  that  year.  He  can  hardly  have  made  this  his  chief 
residence  as  two  other  inhabitants,  Hugh  of  Moneylaws  and  Adam  Harding, 
had  possessions  of  nearly  equal  value,  being  assessed  on  £4  lis.  8d.  and 
£5  8s.  6d.  respectively.' 

John  Wischard  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  his  overlord,  Robert  Roos  of 
Wark,  and  took  the  Scottish  side  when  war  broke  out  in  1296.  In  May  of 
that  year  he  was  numbered  among  Scots  who  held  land  in  Northumberland, 
his  property  in  Moneylaws  being  valued  at  £7  los.  od.,^  and  by  inquisition 
taken  in  1299  it  was  established  that  before  his  treason  he  had  held  the 
manor  of  the  lord  of  Wark  'by  reason  of  the  manor  of  Joan  his  wife,'  and 
paying  a  yearly  rent  of  lod.  for  castle  ward  and  suit  of  court.     There  were 

'  He  was  seemingly  son  and  heir  of  Constance  Flauvell.     Excerpta  e  Rol.  Fin.  vol.  ii.  p.  363 
'  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  17. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  164,  m.  20 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  530 ;  Curia  Regis  Rolls,  Nos.  202, 
206,  2o8a.     De  Banco  Roll,  No.  23 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxi.  pp.  470,  483,  564  ;   vol.  xx\-i.  p.  71. 

*  In  a  case  of  1 294  one  William  Meirin  of  '  Menelowe '  is  reported  as  holding  lands  in  '  Menelowe  et 
Glendale."  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  103,  m.  47do.— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xrai.  p.  76.  He  however,  does  not 
appear  as  a  resident  in  Moneylaws  in  the  Subsidy  Roll  of  1296. 

»  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  iii.  p.  40. 

•  Inq.  p.m.  32  Edw.  I.  No.  121  ;  10  Edw.  II.  No.  11— Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  416;  vol. 
iii.  p.  99- 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  105.  »  Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  48. 

88  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

24  bovates  of  land  in  the  manor,  which  used  to  render  £b  yearly,  but  now 
brought  in  nothing,  except  18  acres  let  out  to  farm  for  i8s.  to  Thomas  Leger. 
The  full  brunt  of  war  had  fallen  on  the  township,  and  an  official,  realizing 
the  position,  has  endorsed  the  return  to  the  effect  that  nothing  would  be 
done  'till  certain  order  be  taken  touching  the  state  of  Scotland.'  The  manor, 
by  reason  of  forfeiture,  was  in  the  king's  hands, ^  but  there  were  various 
claims  on  it.  The  tithe  of  sheaves  thereof,  for  instance,  had  been  bought 
from  the  prior  of  Kirkham  for  sixteen  marks,  and  for  the  payment  of  that 
sum  the  whole  township  had  been  pledged,  'which  town  and  all  the  tenants 
therein,  because  they  were  his  bondsmen,'  were  now  in  the  king's  hands. 
The  position  was  complicated  by  the  fact  that  Wischard  had  sold  a  moiety 
of  this  tithe  to  William  of  Kilham  and  Robert,  chaplain,  also  of  Kilham, 
for  eight  marks,  which  they  had  not  yet  paid  ;  of  the  other  moiety  he  had 
'expended  a  quarter  and  a  bushel  of  wheat  of  the  price  of  5s.'  and  the  rest 
had  been  taken  to  the  castle  of  Wark  by  William  Roos,  the  new  lord  thereof, 
under  the  king's  order  to  provision  it.  Thus  the  prior  had  not  received 
any  of  his  16  marks,  and  had  at  least  a  moral  claim  on  the  king.^  It  might 
seem  strange,  that  a  man,  having  agreed  to  compound  for  his  tithe,  should  sell 
half  thereof  to  some  one  else,  but  this  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  he  had 
given  a  lease  of  his  manor  for  7I  years,  dating  from  Martinmas,  1295,  to  one 
Ellen  Prendrelath,  who  must  have  been  his  wife's  relative.  She  had  been 
lady  in  waiting  to  the  queen  of  Norway,  mother  of  the  little  maid  whose 
premature  death  had  been  one  of  the  prime  causes  of  the  war  between  Scots 
and  English.  The  king  of  Scotland  had  left  her  a  legacy  of  £100  as  a 
reward  for  her  eight  years  of  faithful  service  to  his  daughter,  but  for  some 
reason  the  money  had  been  paid  to  John  Wischard,  who  liquidated  the 
debt  by  giving  her  this  lease  for  7I  years,  it  being  computed  that  the  manor 
was  worth  20  marks  yearly.  When  she  had  only  drawn  one  half  year's 
revenue,  the  whole  property  had  been  taken  into  the  king's  hands,  and  so 
it  remained  till  she  managed  to  interest  the  English  queen  in  her  case. 
At  last  after  many  delays  the  king  answered  her  petition  favourably, ^ 
and  in  April,  1305,  the  manor  was  handed  over  to  her,  as  a  matter  of  grace 
and  not  as  a  matter  of  right,  till  such  time  as  she  should  have  cleared  the 
140  marks  still  due.* 

'  Cat.  of  Inq.  Miscellaneous,  vol.  i.  pp.  495-496.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  486. 

»  Chancery  Inq.  Misc.  file  63,  No.  13 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  ii.  pp.  416-417.      Cf.  Col.  of  Inq. 
Miscellaneous,  vol.  i.  pp.  525-526.  *  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1302-1307,  p.  257. 


John  Wischard  must  have  returned  to  his  allegiance,  for  in  1314  he  was 
back  in  possession,  but  on  August  12th  of  that  year  he  created  something 
of  a  record  by  joining  the  Scots  and  forfeiting  his  property  for  the  second 
time,  induced  thereto  doubtless  by  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  the  English 
at  Bannockburn.  Once  more  the  king  held  the  manor,  now  said  to  be  worth 
£10  in  time  of  peace  but  at  the  time  of  no  value  at  all.^  Two  years  later  it 
was  granted  for  life  to  David  Baxter  of  Lanton,^  later  bailiff  of  Wark.  At 
his  death  in  1332,  he  was  said  to  have  held  the  manor  of  the  king,  as  of  the 
castle  of  Wark  by  service  of  4od.  for  castle  guard,  a  considerable  reduction 
on  the  former  40s.,  and  by  service  of  a  knight's  fee,  Thomas,  his  son  and  heir, 
being  aged  14.^  The  property  was  taken  into  the  king's  hands  by  reason 
of  the  minority  of  the  heir,*  but  the  mistake  made  in  the  inquisition  was 
soon  found  out,  and  as  Money  laws  had  been  only  held  for  life,  the  property 
escheated  to  the  king.^  In  1368  Edward  III.  gave  it  in  fee  simple  to  Alice 
Ferrers,  his  famous,  or  rather  infamous,  mistress,^  who  in  the  following  year 
conveyed  it  to  Henry  Strother  'le  piere.'  As  there  was  then  a  claim  for 
dower  thereon  in  favour  of  Margaret,  wife  of  Thomas  Blensansop,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  land  had  not  been  in  the  king's  hands  ever  since  1323.  The  manor 
was  at  the  same  time  settled  in  tail  male,  with  reservation  of  Henry  Strother's 
life  interest,  on  his  sons,  John,  Henry  and  Thomas  successively. '^ 

For  two  hundred  years  Moneylaws  remained  in  the  family  of  Strother. 
In  1375  Henry  Strother  gave  his  manor  of  Moneylaws  to  his  brother  Alan,^ 
but  as  the  original  charter  has  not  survived  and  we  have  only  the  bare  abstract 
of  it,  we  cannot  tell  the  nature  of  the  gift,  which  may  have  been  only  for  life. 
When  the  feudal  aid  of  1428  was  collected,  Thomas  Strother  of  Newton 
held  Moneylaws  in  fee  as  of  the  lordship  of  Wark,^  but  no  other  mention  of 
the  family  there  occurs  till  1535,  when  William  Strother  of  Newton  settled 
it  with  other  properties  on  his  son  William. ^^^  In  1541  according  to  the 
border  survey  '  the  towneshippe  of  Monylawes  conteyneth  in  yt  LX  husband- 
lands  and  ys  now  plenyshed.  In  yt  ys  nether  tower,  barmekyn  nor  fortresse, 
and  therefore  yt  suffereth  greatt  hurte  in  tyme  of  warre.     Wyll'm  Strouther 

'  Inq.  p.m.  lo  Edw.  II.  No.  ii — Bain,  Cal.  oj Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  99.     Cf.  Cal.  of  Inq.  Misc.  vol.  ii.  p.77. 

°  Cat   of  Patent  Rolls,  1313-1317,  p.  570.     He  is  here  called  David  of  Lanton     For  his  identification 
with  David  Baxter,  see  page  226. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq   p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.  *  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  1319-1327,  p.  241. 

'  Originalia — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  298.  '  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  p.  146. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  p.  292.        '  Dodsworth  MS.  45,  fol.  53  ;  Lansdowne  MS.  326,  fol.  140. 

•  Feudal  Aids   vol.  iv.  p.  86.  '"  Laing  Charters,  pp.  104-105. 

Vol.  XI.  12 

go  PARISH    OF    CARHAM. 

of  East  Newton,  gentleman,  ys  the  Inheryture  and  owener  of  this  towne.'^  In 
1568  Roger  Strother  of  Newton  was  the  owner,-  but  he  is  the  last  of  the 
family  to  be  mentioned  as  such,  since  in  1579  John  Selby  was  complaining 
'of  a  late  spoyle  committed  by  the  Scottes  upon  her  Majesties  subjects  of 
the  towne  of  Moneylawes.'^  This  was  John  Selby  of  Branxton,  who  in  1581 
settled  his  lands  in  Moneylaws  with  an  elaborate  series  of  remainders  by 
fine,  in  which  William  Strother  and  Lancelot  Strother  were  the  plaintiffs,* 
doubtless  the  lord  of  Newton  and  his  heir.  Though  John  Selby  held  the 
responsible  post  of  gentleman  porter  of  Berwick,  he  was  not  very  careful  to 
administer  his  newly  acquired  property  in  the  national  interest,  and  in  1586, 
in  view  of  the  way  that  border  landlords  were  introducing  tenants  of  Scottish 
origin  to  the  exclusion  of  Englishmen,  there  were  serious  complaints  made  that 
'the  owner  of  Monylaws  hath  not  an  Engleshe  man  that  dwellethe  in  hyt.'^ 
But  this  did  not  give  him  exemption  from  the  depredations  of  Scottish 
thieves,  a  hundred  of  whom  descended  on  the  township  in  1588,  and  carried 
off  cattle  to  the  value  of  £200.®  His  son,  William  Selby,  who  had  succeeded 
to  the  estate  in  1597,  had  a  similar  experience  on  a  much  smaller  scale.' 
In  1612,  after  the  death  of  his  uncle,  to  whose  southern  estates  he  succeeded, 
William  Selby  did  homage  to  the  king  for  '  the  manor,  chief  messuage  or  tene- 
ment called  Money lawes,'  as  his  father's  heir,^  and  in  1672  George  Selby  of 
Twizell  left  his  '  capital  messuage  of  Moneylaws  in  tail  male  to  his  sons  Ralph 
and  George  successively.^  After  the  death  of  these  two  in  succession  the 
property  was  divided  between  their  two  sisters,  Dorothy  and  Frances.^"  The 
former  left  her  share  of  what  was  described  as  '  three-fourth  parts  of  the  village 
and  hamlet  of  Moneylaws'  to  her  second  husband,  Sir  Wilham  Van 
Colster,  bart.,  who  in  1709  sold  it  to  Carnaby  Haggerston,  eldest  son  of 
William  Haggerston,  and  grandson  of  Sir  Thomas  Haggerston  of  Haggerston, 
bart.  Later  this  purchaser  acquired  the  other  portion  of  the  Selby  in- 
heritance.^^ Thus  New  Moneylaws  or  East  Moneylaws  became  the  inheritance 
of  the  Haggerston  family,  with  whom  it  remains  at  the  present  day.^^ 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  31. 

'  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  hi.  p.  Ixix.  '  Acts  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  ii.  p.  301. 

♦  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  45.     For  details  see  page  113. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  228. 

"  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  355.    It  suffered  severely  too  at  the  hands  of  the  earl  of  Westmorland's  raiders  in  1570. 
Ihid.  vol.  i.  p.  14. 

'  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  442.  *  P.R.O.  L.T.R.  Memoranda  Roll,  545,  Easter  10  Jas.  I.  m.  319. 

•  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  v.  p.  269.      "  For  details  of  the  descent  see  page  1 14. 

"  Moneylaws  Deeds.  "  For  pedigree  of  Haggerston  see  Raine,  North  Durham,  pp.  223-224. 


In  1684  the  succession  of  Dorothy  and  Frances  had  been  disputed  by 
Rowland  Selby,  husband  of  the  last  named, ^  and  he  seems  to  have  secured 
a  quarter  of  the  property.  At  any  rate  he  had  ah-eady  anticipated  the 
success  of  his  claim  by  selling  a  quarter  of  the  manor  to  Sir  Francis  Blake 
of  Ford  in  1677,  and  his  widow  confirmed  this  grant  in  1691.  Henceforth 
this  portion,  known  as  Old  Moneylaws  or  West  Moneylaws,  formed  part  of 
the  Ford  estate,  and  is  now  the  property  of  Lord  Joicey.- 


Presson^  a  long  narrow  township  reaching  from  Learmouth  on  the  east 
to  the  Scottish  border  on  the  west,  has  never  been  a  place  of  much  importance. 
The  only  outstanding  event  recorded  throughout  its  history  is  that  in  Piper- 
dean,  on  the  banks  of  the  Presson  burn  and  hard  by  Presson  farm  house, 
a  border  fight  of  some  fame  took  place  on  September  loth,  1436.  According 
to  the  Scottish  chroniclers  a  foray,  led,  as  one  account  says,  by  the  earl  of 
Northumberland,  was  caught  on  its  homeward  way  at  this  spot  so  close  to 
the  border  by  William  Douglas,  earl  of  Angus,  with  whom  were  Adam 
Hepburn  of  Hailes  and  Alexander  Ramsay  of  Dalhousie.  A  fierce  fight 
between  the  forces,  each  said  to  have  consisted  of  4,000  men,  ended  in  a  Scottish 
victory,  the  losses  on  both  sides  being  about  400  men,  of  whom  the  Scots  lost 
Guy  Elphinstone  and  the  English  Sir  Henry  Clennell,  Sir  Richard  Percy  and 
Sir  John  Ogle,  while  Sir  Robert  Ogle,  junior,  and  1,500  rank  and  file  were 
taken  prisoners.*  The  fame  of  Piperdean  lies  mainly  in  the  fact  that  it  has 
obviously  inspired  the  setting  for  the  ballad  of  Chevy  Chase,  though  many 
of  the  later  episodes  recounted  therein  evidently  refer  to  the  battle  of 

Descent  of  the  Property. — To-day  Presson  possesses  no  hamlet  of 
any  size,  and  as  early  as  1296  only  three  inhabitants  were  assessed  for  the 
subsidy  of  that  year,  though  their  goods  reached  the  quite  respectable  sum  of 
£27  17s.  4d.^  It  formed  part  of  the  barony  of  Roos,^  but  only  a  portion,  if 
an}'  part,  of  it  was  kept  in  the  hands  of  the  tenant  in  chief  in  early  days.     The 

'  See  pages  114-115.  2  Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  i.  pp.  23,  44. 

°  Earlier  PcffiZ/i?)) ,  Presseii,  Pressejeit,  Presjen.  O.E.  preosta — or  preostes-/en  =  priest{s)  fen,  so  called 
from  its  some  time  owner(s). 

•  Bower's  Continuation  in  Johannis  de  Fordun  Scotichronicon  cum  Conlinuaiione  Walteri  Boweri  (Edin- 
burgh, 1759),  vol.  ii.  p.  501  ;  The  Buik  of  the  Chroniclis  oj  Scotland  (Rolls  Series,  No.  0)  vol.  iii.pp.  553-554. 
Bovver  alone  gives  the  name  of  the  battle. 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  in.  "  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211. 


chief  landowner  in  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century  was  probably  a  certain 
Orm  of  Presson,  who  had  a  dispute  with  the  priory  of  Kirkham  with  regard  to 
the  boundary  of  Carham  and  Presson,  which  he  claimed  ran  northwards  of  the 
Howburn.^     Ultimately  he  surrendered  his  claim,  and  in  addition  bestowed 
on  the  canons  two  bovates  of  land  with  a  toft  and  pasture  for  200  sheep, 
15  cows^  and  one  bull  in  return  for  the  privilege  for  himself  and  his  heirs  of 
having  a  chapel  in  Presson  in  which  services  might  be  held  on  Sundays 
and  Fridays,  provided  that  attendance  at  the  parish  church  was  not  omitted 
on  Christmas  Day,  the  Purification,  Good  Friday,  Easter  Day,  Whitsunday 
and  on  the  feasts  of  St.  Cuthbert  and  All  Saints.^     Orm  must  have  been  a 
man  of  some  local  importance,  and  probably  held  the  larger  part  of  the 
township  of  the  barony,  and  his  son  Robert  succeeded  him,  as  the  latter 
confirmed  his  father's  charter,  adding  to  the  gift  a  couple  of  acres  for  building 
a  sheep  pen  and  a  cattle  pen,  and  in  return  being  allowed  services  in  the 
chapel  on  Wednesdays  as  well  as  on  Sundays  and  Fridays.*     This  Robert's 
son,   Robert  Malonflatt,   added  to   the  previous  gifts  to   Kirkham  priory 
5  roods  of  arable  land  in  Westhodacres  towards  Lamplatelaw,  and  confirmed 
and  defined  the  pasture  rights  of  the  monks,  allowing  them  to  pasture  the 
oxen  pertaining  to  land  given  them  by  one  Birilot  as  well  as  those  already 
allowed  for.     This  last  mentioned  gift,  which  must  have  been  made  a  short 
time  previously,  consisted  of  two  bovates  of  land  and  a  toft  consisting  of  one 
acre  and  a  half  lying  beside  the  chapel  at  the  east  end  of  the  donor's  property. 
Birilot  was  at  the  time  of  her  gift,  or  shortly  afterwards,  the  wife  of  Helyas, 
and  possibly  held  the  land  of  Robert,  son  of  Orm,  whose  confirmation  of  her 
gift  was  deemed  necessary.     She  had  two  children,  a  son,  Gregory,  who  also 
confirmed  the  gift,  and  a  daughter,  Sibrida,  to  whom  and  to  her  husband, 
Robert  Herpam,  she  had  given  a  moiety  of  her  lands  in  Presson  in  free 
marriage.^     Her  position  with  regard  to  her  property  is  somewhat  obscure, 
since  in  no  case  was  her  husband  associated  with  her  gifts  or  even  mentioned 
in  the  charters  confirming  them. 

The  descendants  of  Orm  and  Birilot  probably  held  most  of  the  town- 
ship between  them,  but  some  portion  of  it  was  directly  in  the  hands  of  the 
overlord,  as  in  125 1  Robert  Roos  received  a  grant  of  free  warren  in  his 
demesne  lands  there.®     His  attempts  to  increase  his  holding  were  frustrated 

1  '  Ultra  Holcburnam  versus  Carram.'      ^  The  charter  gives  xvi.  cows,  but  later  confirmations  all  have  xv. 
'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  iz.     Hugh  Puiset,  bishop  of  Durham  1153-1195,  confirmed  this  grant. 
*  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  8i.  ^  jug  e  Ca;.  oj  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  374. 


in  1256,  when  Simon,  son  of  Roger  Horseley,  got  damages  of  40s.  against 
him  for  having  been  disseised  of  two  bovates  of  land  in  the  township.^  The 
actual  situation  is  revealed  in  1274,  when  this  Robert  Roos's  widow,  Margaret, 
sued  her  late  husband's  nephew,  Robert  Roos  of  Helmsley,  for  a  third  part 
of  the  manor  as  dower.  The  latter  had  seized  the  land  as  the  heir's  guardian 
and  refused  to  yield  dower  till  the  custody  of  the  heir's  person  was  sur- 
rendered by  Margaret. 2  It  is  thus  obvious  that  at  this  time  the  manor  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  lords  of  Wark,  but  some  lands  in  the  township  had 
recently  been  subinfeudated,  as  Margaret  at  the  same  time  sued  Ralph 
Pally  for  a  third  part  of  two  messuages  and  two  bovates  of  land.  Ralph  called 
the  infant  heir  to  warrant,  but  on  second  thoughts  decided  not  to  fight  the 
case.^  The  position  was  made  still  more  clear,  when  in  1293  Robert  Roos 
successfully  claimed  infangenthef  in  Presson  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a 
member  of  his  manor  of  Wark.* 

This,  however,  is  the  last  occasion  on  which  Presson  is  described  as 
dependent  on  the  manor  of  Wark.  At  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century 
it  was  held  by  William  Roos,  and  the  most  important  tenant  was  one  Robert 
Eyre,  described  as  of  Presson  in  1291,^  and  similarly  so  in  1296,  when  he 
was  associated  with  one  John  Sampson  in  seizing  966  head  of  cattle  and 
two  chargers,  belonging  to  Hugh  Despenser,  which  were  being  sent  under 
the  king's  safe  conduct  from  Scotland  to  England.  John  and  Robert 
seized  the  drove  as  it  passed  Presson  and  placed  it  in  Wark  Castle,  on  the 
ground  that  the  hue  and  cry  had  been  raised  against  Despenser's  men,  who 
however  maintained  that  they  showed  their  safe  conduct.  As  a  result  one 
charger  valued  at  £50  was  lost  and  only  800  head  of  cattle  was  returned  to 
the  owner,  who  claimed  damages.^  When  the  subsidy  of  this  same  year 
came  to  be  levied,  Robert  Eyre  was  assessed  on  £25  14s.  8d.,  a  very  large  sum 
and  far  in  excess  of  the  other  two  inhabitants  of  the  township,  who  between 
them  had  goods  of  £12  2s.  8d.'^  These  were  John,  son  of  Simon,  assessed 
on  £3  IIS.  and  Wilham  Roos  assessed  on  £8  lis.  Sd.**    The  first  of  these  was 

'  Norlhiimberland  Assize  Rolls,  (Surtees  .Society),  p.  51. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  5,  m.  7 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  141-143. 

'  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  5,  m.  7  ;  No.  7,  m.  11  ;  No.  11,  m.  3 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .x.\vi.  pp.  141-143, 
175,  221.  For  a  time  after  the  death  of  Robert  Roos  in  1274  the  king's  esche'ator  held  seisin  of  his  lands 
in  Presson.     Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Society),  p.  330. 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edward  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  390-391. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  127,  m.  60 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  359. 

«  Pleasof  the  Army — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  ii.  pp.  192-193.         '  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  iii 

*  Ibid. 



the  other  free  tenant,  the  second  the  lord  of  the  manor,  who  is  to  be  identified 
with  Wilham  Roos  of  Presson  who  appears  in  a  case  of  1295,^  and  again  later 
in  1304.2  After  his  mother's  gift  of  Kendal,^  he  became  William  Roos  of 
Kendal  and  died  in  13 10  seised  of  Presson,  held  of  William  Roos,  lord  of 
Wark  and  Helmsley,  by  homage  and  service  of  id.  yearly.  His  heir  was  his 
son  Thomas,  aged  3^  years  old.*  The  property  then  consisted  of  a  waste 
place,  where  a  capital  messuage  had  been,  the  herbage  whereof  was  worth 
I2d.  yearly,  in  addition  to  200  acres  of  demesne  land  valued  at  6d.  an  acre 
yearly,  and  a  water  mill  worth  40s.  yearly.  There  were  two  free  tenants, 
William  Eyre,  son  doubtless  of  Robert  before  mentioned,  and  John  del 
Gren,  who  may  be  the  same  as  John,  son  of  Simon,  assessed  in  1296.  The 
former  held  one  ploughland  by  the  service  of  a  pound  of  pepper  yearly, 
valued  at  I2d.,  and  seven  acres  and  a  rod  of  land  by  service  of  one  penny 
and  a  rose  yearly,  the  latter  held  24  acres  of  land  by  service  of  i8d.  yearly. 
There  were  in  addition  9  tenants  at  will,  described  as  farmers,  of  whom  six 
held  a  messuage  and  24  acres  of  land  each  and  paid  therefore  8s.  annually, 
two  held  similar  holdings  at  the  higher  rent  of  los.  id.,  and  the  ninth 
another  at  the  lower  rent  of  6s.  8d.  Four  bondmen  each  held  similar 
holdings  at  the  yearly  rent  of  8s.,  and  four  cottars  each  held 
a  cottage  and  paid  therefore  i8d.  each.  Added  to  these,  to  make 
up  the  full  yearly  rent  of  £13  los.  3|d.,  there  was  a  cottage  valued 
at  6d.  and  another  at  4|d.  yearly,  a  brewhouse  valued  at  8s.  yearly, 
and  the  office  of  reaper,^  worth  5s.  yearly.^  Probably  the  property 
passed  from  Thomas  Roos,  though  it  was  still  subinfeudated  and 
not  in  the  hands  of  the  tenant-in-chief  when  the  feudal  aid  of  1346  was 
collected.'^  By  1365  it  belonged  to  Joan,  widow  of  John  Coupland,^  and  she 
conveyed  it  in  1372  to  trustees  for  the  use  of  Richard  Arundel  and  his  heirs.* 
The  Arundels  held  it  of  the  lord  of  Wark^"  down  to  1404, ^^  after  which  it  passed 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  146,  m.  56 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxiii.  p.  614. 

2  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  149,  m.  328do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxix.  p.  297. 

'  Cal.  of  Ing.,  pm.  vol.  iv.  pp.  284,  285. 

*  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  v.  p.i  18.  In  1306-7  William  Roos,  describing  himself  as  brother  of  the  traitor, 
asked  for  a  grant  of  the  manor  of  Belhster  in  the  king's  hands  by  reason  of  the  death  of  his  mother.  (Chancery 
Misc.  Portfolios,  No.  ^Vjs^Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  381.)  Nicholas  Synopsis  of  the  Peerage  (London, 
1825),  vol.  ii.  p.  551  makes  William  Roos  of  Kendal  the  son  and  heir  of  Robert  Roos  of  Wark  and  Margaret 
Brus,  but  he  also  identifies  this  Robert  Roos  with  the  Robert  Roos  who  forfeited  his  lands  in  1296,  whereas 
the  latter  was  the  former's  grandson.  J.  W.  Clay,  Extinct  Peera£;es  of  Northern  Counties  (London,  1913),  p. 
185,  seems  to  make  William  brother  of  the  traitor,  but  also  describes  him  as  'brother  of  the  last  William.' 

'  Officium  messoris.        «  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Edw.  IL  file  17  (.5).        '  feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  67. 

"  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  lU.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .xx.xix.  pp.  274-276. 

'  Ibid.  47  Edw.  in.  No.  158 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  312-315;  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  12^7- 
1300,  p.  448.  '"  Inq.  p.m.  3  Ric.  II.  No.  i — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-45. 

"  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1401-1405,  pp.  309-310^ 


to  the  Greys,  who  already  held  a  small  holding  there.  Thomas  Grey  died 
in  1440  seized  of  lands  in  Presson  held  of  Richard  Arundel  by  knight's 
service, '  as  of  his  manor  of  Muschamp.  '^  This  description  cannot  be  accurate, 
for  Presson  was  never  parcel  of  the  barony  of  Muschamp,  but  it  seems  Ukely 
that  the  Greys,  having  acquired  some  small  holding  in  the  township  held  of 
the  mesne  lord,  later  bought  out  that  lord  and  became  owners  of  the  whole 
place.  At  any  rate,  when  the  feudal  aid  of  1428  was  collected.  Sir  Ralph 
Grey  held  the  vill  in  fee  tail,^  and  when  he  died  in  1443  he  held  '  in  his  demesne 
of  fee  tail'  the  township  of  Presson  worth  yearly  40s.,  held  of  the  king  in 
socage  as  of  the  lordship  of  Wark.'^  In  some  of  the  later  inquisitions  of  the 
Grey  family  the  property  is  not  mentioned,  but  in  1561  an  extent  of  Sir 
Ralph  Grey's  lands  mentions  it  as  worth  £5  6s.  8d.  with  the  note 
that  it  was  not  parcel  of  the  barony  of  Wark,*  which  must  mean  that, 
having  been  acquired  at  a  different  time  and  under  different  conditions,  it 
no  longer  ranked  with  the  lands  held  of  the  king  by  knight's  service, 
but  was,  as  described  in  1443,  held  by  socage  tenure. 

In  the  sixteenth  century  the  township  contained  eight  husband  lands, 
which  in  1541  were  'plenyshed,'  though  as  there  was  no  fortress^  the 
inhabitants  in  time  of  war  had  to  leave  their  lands  to  be  devastated  while 
they  sought  refuge  in  some  fortress  further  removed  from  the  borders.  At 
that  time  the  township  was  in  the  hand  of  Lionel  Grey,  porter  of  Berwick,® 
one  of  the  Greys  of  Horton,  into  whose  family  the  then  owner,  Sir  Ralph 
Grey,  had  married.  He  was  troubled  by  Scottish  claims  to  a  strip  of  land 
about  half  a  mile  long  by  two  miles  in  depth  on  the  frontier,  the  line  of 
demarcation  running  as  far  westwards  as  the  Westford  of  Presson  according 
to  these  assertions.  The  English  took  a  line  along  Caldron  Burn  and  thence 
on  to  the  summit  of  Horse  Rigg  as  the  proper  boundary,  but  nothing  was 
settled,  even  after  the  English  commissioners  of  1541  had  burnt  the  corn 
planted  by  the  Scots  in  the  disputed  area  by  way  of  asserting  their  rights.' 
After  the  death  of  Ford,  Lord  Grey,  in  1701,  Presson  went  to  his  brother 
Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  and  by  the  terms  of  the  latter's  will,  passed  to  the 
ancestors  of  the  present  Earl  Grey,  who  now  owns  the  township,*  with  the 
exception  of  Howburn  farm,  sold  in  1921  to  Mr.  Henry  Hall  Turnbull  of 

'  Inq.  p.m.  2  Hen.  IV.  No.  50 — Scalacronica,  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  p.  Ixi. 

*  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  86.  '  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  file  iii. 

«  P.R.O.  State  Papers,  Borders,  5.  fol.  103. 

'  Christopher  Dacre  in  his  Plat  of  Castles,  &c.,  in  I58.(  marks  'preswen'  as  the  site  of  a  tower  (Photo- 
graph in  Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79).      This  may  be  a  mistake,  or  refer  to  a  tower  to  be  built  in  the  future. 
'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  pp.  30-31. 
'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  174-175.  '  Howick  Muniments. 



Ecclesiastical  History. — The  parish  and  township  of  Branxton  are 
identical  in  area  and  have  been  so  continuously  since  the  beginning  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  if  not  before,  a  unique  instance  in  this  district,  though 
Wooler,  before  the  incorporation  of  Fenton  in  1313,  enjoyed  the  same 
position.  Towards  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century  Ralph,  son  of  Gilbert  of 
Branxton,  gave  the  church  of  Branxton  in  perpetual  and  free  alms  to  the 
monks  of  Durham  to  the  use  of  their  infirmary,^  a  grant  confirmed  by  the 
king  in  1195.-  The  canons  of  Kirkham,  protesting  that  their  rights  had 
thereby  been  infringed,  appealed  to  the  pope,  who  in  1200  issued  a  mandate 
to  the  priors  of  Merton  and  Malton  to  inquire  into  the  matter.  For  the 
appellants  it  was  argued  that  the  church  of  Branxton  pertained  to  the  church 
of  Kirknewton,  which  was  already  appropriated  to  them,  but  that  certain 
malefactors  during  recent  disturbances  due  to  war  in  these  parts — possibly 
an  allusion  to  the  invasion  of  William  the  Lion  some  25  years  earlier — had 
possessed  themselves  of  the  church  and  had  presented  to  it  a  clerk  named 
Merlin,  who  refused  to  resign.  The  two  priors  summoned  the  prior  and 
convent  of  Durham,  who  appear  as  the  'malefactors,'  Merlin  and  the  prior 
of  the  convent  of  Kirkham  to  appear  before  them,  and  after  great  debate 
and  the  bringing  of  much  evidence,  they  procured  an  amicable  settlement 
of  the  dispute.  The  canons  of  Kirkham  surrendered  whatever  claims 
they  had,  and  undertook  no  longer  to  molest  the  monks  of  Durham 
or  their  vicar.  In  return  for  this  and  an  acknowledgment  that  Branxton 
was  an  independent  church,^  and  that  it  was  appropriated  to  them, 
the  prior  and  convent  of  Durham  granted  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  the 
keeping  of  the  agreement,  that  an  annual  rent  of  four  shillings  should  be 
paid  to  the  canons  of  Kirkham  at  Whitsuntide  by  being  placed  on  the  altar 
of  the  church  of  Kirknewton.*     The  terms  of  this  agreement,  as  recorded  in 

'  Undated  Charter — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  147-150;  Raine,  North  Durham,  .-^pp.  No.  Dcclxxix. 
P-  139- 

'  4th  February,  6  Ric.  I.  confirmed  again  in  1335.     Cal.  of  Charier  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  324. 

'  Ecclesiam,  tamquam  matricem. 

*  Kirkham  Cartularv,  fol.  8g.  A  less  full  and  explicit  document  describing  this  transaction  is  printed 
from  the  Durham  Treasury  in  Ilodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  147-150,  and  in  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No. 
Dcclxx.wii    p.  140. 


the  Kirkham  Cartulary  and  therefore  not  Ukely  to  err  to  the  advantage 
of  Durham,  can  be  construed  into  meaning  only  that  the  claim  of  Kirkham 
was  quite  unfounded,  and  that  Branxton  had  been  all  along  an  independent 

The  monks  of  Durham  were  careful  to  make  their  title  thus  established 
doubly  sure.  They  secured  confirmation  of  the  appropriation  both  from  the 
bishop  of  Durham, 1  and  the  pope.^  Further  they  procured  a  confirmation 
of  his  father's  gift  from  Alexander,  son  of  Ralph  of  Branxton,^  but  this 
was  not  enough,  as  in  1208  Alexander  effected  an  exchange  of  lands  with 
Theobald  of  Shotton,  whereby  the  majority  of  Branxton  passed  to  the  latter.* 
A  series  of  confirmations  was  therefore  secured  from  the  three  co-heiresses 
of  Theobald  of  Branxton,  who  must  have  been  identical  with  Theobald  of 
Shotton,  the  eldest  of  whom  repeated  her  undertaking  in  1241.^  This  last 
confirmation  doubtless  synchronized  with  the  appropriation  of  the  church 
for  the  support  of  two  monks  at  the  chapel  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  Wark- 
worth,  a  cell  of  Durham  monastery,  by  decree  of  Nicholas  of  Farnham, 
who  was  appointed  to  the  see  of  Durham  that  very  year.^ 

Hitherto  the  bishop  had  not  provided  for  the  ordination  of  a  vicarage 
at  Branxton,  and  when  one  Gilbert  Aristotil  had  been  appointed  to  the 
rectory,  the  monastery,  to  prevent  the  severance  of  the  appropriation,  had 
bound  him  in  a  pledge  that  it  should  not  lose  anything  thereby  ;'^  moreover, 
the  incumbent  is  styled  rector  in  an  official  document  of  1251.^  In  1258 
a  vicar  is  for  the  first  time  mentioned,  when  Richard  of  Bechefeld  was 
instituted,^  and  in  1273  it  was  ordered  by  the  bishop's  official  that  the 
vicarage  of  Branxton  should  consist  of  the  tithes  of  wool,  lambs,  hay  and 
mills  and  other  lesser  tithes  and  oblations  belonging  to  the  church,  besides 
40s.  annually  from  the  tithes  of  corn  to  be  paid  by  the  keeper  of  the  cell 
of  Warkworth,  together   with   the  parsonage   and  its  land  in  the  village, 

'  Durham  Treasury,  3.  i.  Pontif.  No.  16.  Later  another  confirmation  was  secured  from  another  bishop 
of  Durham,  probably  Robert  de  Insula,  1274-1284.     Durham  Treasury,  4.  2.  Pontif.  No.  12. 

'^  Cal.  of  Papal  Letters,  vol.  i.  p.  47.     The  name  is  spelt  'Brargkistun.' 

=  Undated  document — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  148  ;  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No.  Dccl.\x.xv.  p.  140. 
This  must  have  been  procured  about  the  same  time  as  the  dispute  as  one  of  the  witnesses  is  '  Mcrlino  clerico 
de  Brankestun.' 

*  See  page  no. 

'  Documents  from  Durham  Treasury — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  147-148  ;  Raine,  Xorlh  Durham, 
App.  Nos.  Dcclxxx.-Dcclx.x.xv.  pp.  139-140. 

«  Document  from  Durham  Treasury — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  149-       Cf.  Scripiores  Tres.  p.  42. 

'  Durham  Treasury  Doctimetit— Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  149;    Raine,  App.  No.  Dcclxxxviii.  p.  140. 

8  Ibid.  '  Durham  Treasury,  Mis.  Charters,  5,034*. 

Vol  XI.  13 


saving  to  the  keeper  of  the  cell  the  granary  attached  to  the  parsonage  with 
free  access  thereto.  The  vicar  was  to  bear  all  the  ordinary  charges  of  the 
cure,  but  was  responsible  only  for  a  third  of  any  extraordinary  ones.^  The 
value  of  the  vicarage  was  estimated  at  six  marks  a  few  years  later,-  and  at  a 
similar  sum  in  1314.^  This,  doubtless,  included  the  allowance  of  40s.  from 
the  greater  tithes,  which  was  paid  to  the  vicar  by  the  proctor  of  Norham,* 
but  it  seems  that  by  the  fifteenth  century  it  had  become  customary  to  assign 
the  whole  of  the  tithes  of  the  parish  to  the  vicar  on  account  of  the  smallness 
of  his  vicarage.^  In  1539  the  Durham  bursar  accounted  for  13s.  4d.  from 
the  vicar  of  Branxton  for  his  pension,^  which  may  mean  that  the  tables  had 
been  reversed,  and  that  instead  of  receiving  an  allowance  of  40s.  a  year  out 
of  the  greater  tithes,  the  vicar  took  all  tithes  and  paid  the  monastery  a  rent 
of  13s.  4d.  for  the  privilege.  This  would  explain  the  fact  that  search  has 
been  made  in  vain  among  the  records  of  the  augmentation  office  for  any 
evidence  of  the  profits  received  by  the  crown  from  the  rectory  of  Branxton, 
save  as  to  a  pension  of  13s.  4d.  payable  thereout  to  the  monastery."  Offi- 
cially the  rectory  was  valued  at  jTio  13s.  4d.  exclusive  of  the  4s.  payable  to 

After  the  Dissolution  the  advowson  was  granted  to  the  dean  and  chapter 
of  Durham,^  with  whom  it  still  remains.  Just  before  this,  in  1538,  the  vicarage 
had  been  valued  at  £3  6s.  Sd.^"  a  drop  of  13s.  4d.  on  its  earlier  value,  and  in 
1557  it  stood  at  practically  the  same  sum.^^  During  the  Commonwealth  it 
was  reported  as  of  the  yearly  value  of  £16  paid  by  Sir  William  Selby,  and 
the  commissioners  of  1650  recommended  that  the  parish  should  be  absorbed 
in  Ford. ^2  The  tithes  had  fallen  some  hundred  years  earlier  into  the  hands  of 
the  Selby  family,  which  owned  the  manor,  for  in  1565  John  Selby  bequeathed 

'  Durham  Treasury  Document — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  130-136. 

'  Taxatio  Ecclesiastica  Ar.glie,  1291 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  352. 

'  Reg.  Palal.  Diinttm,  vol   i   pp.  596-598. 

'  Receipts  for  pension  of  40s.  1342-1358  and  1371.     Durham  Treasury  Mis.  Charters,  3,627,  3,993,  4,007. 

*  Compotus  Roll  of  Norham,  Annis  1451-2,   1437-8 — Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  280. 

^Bursar's  Rental,  1539 — Feodarium  Prioratus  Dunehn,  p.  303. 

'  Newcastle  Public  Library,  Caley  MS.  p.  114. 

'  Taxatio  Ecclesiastica  Anglie  {1291) — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  352;  Old  Taxation,  1306 — Reg.  Palat. 
Dunehn,  vol.  iii.  p.  97;  Nonarum  Inquisitiones,  1340 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  xxxix.  A  series  of  28 
receipts  given  by  Kirkham  priory  between  1336  and  1440  is  in  Treasury  oj  Durham  Mis.  Charters,  3,517-5,092. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xvi.  p.  422. 

"  Valor.  F.ccles.  26  Hen.  VHI. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  xlv. 

"  Values  and  Patrons  circa  1577 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  xlvii. 

"  Ecclesiastical  Inquest.  1650 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  liii.  and  Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  iii.  p.  5. 
In  the  rate  book  of  1663  the  vicarage  is  valued  at  £20.     Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  277. 


to  his  son  John  certain  tithes  and  the  advowson  of  the  church.^  From  the 
wording  of  the  will  it  is  possible  that  by'  advowson  rectorial  tithes  were 
meant,  at  any  rate  this  is  the  only  extant  suggestion  that  the  presentation 
ever  left  the  hands  of  the  dean  and  chapter  of  Durham,  who  were  certainly 
the  patrons  a  few  years  later. ^  The  tithes  probably  passed  with  the  manor, 
since  Mr.  Caley  after  prolonged  research  could  find  no  evidence  as  to  whom 
they  were  granted  at  the  Dissolution,  and  in  his  day  they  were  held  by  the 
family  of  Collingwood,  which  derived  its  title  from  the  Haggerstons,  but 
could  not  trace  it  back  further  than  1714.^  In  1725  and  again  in  1736  Mr. 
Haggerston  of  Ellingham  was  the  impropriator  and  paid  ;^20  to  the  vicar, 
whose  living  was  worth  £30  in  all.* 

Branxton  serves  as  an  excellent  example  of  the  decay  of  the  church  as  a 
spiritual  force  in  the  eighteenth  century,  particularly  in  Northumberland, 
where  the  large  majority  of  the  people  were  nonconformists.  In  1725  the 
vicar  of  Norham  reported  that  'the  church  is  in  a  sad  condition,  very  unbe- 
coming the  worship  of  Almighty  God.  Not  only  the  Decencies  but  the  very 
Necessaries  are  awanting  in  it.  The  whole  parish  are  Dissenters,  and  as 
such  will  not  be  ready  to  have  a  regard  for  the  Church  or  to  comply  with  the 
authority  of  her  officers.'^  Some  responsibility  for  this  state  of  affairs  was 
due  to  the  character  of  the  incumbent,  for  in  1736  Bishop  Chandler  found 
that  '  by  reason  of  stupidity  and  immorality  of  Mr.  Stockdale's  predecessor, 
and  enthusiastic^  principles  in  those  parts,  only  four  or  five  went  to  church 
and  none  to  sacrament  but  his  own  family.  The  inhabitants  were  three 
farmers,  the  rest  poor.  There  was  neither  meeting  house  nor  school.'  In 
all  there  were  only  36  parishioners  and  they  were  all  presbyterians,  a  disheart- 
ening cure  for  any  man,  and  it  says  something  for  his  perseverance  that  he 
was  resident,  though  no  house  was  provided,  and  that  he  persevered  with 
his  morning  service  on  Sunday,  though  he  held  none  in  the  evening."     After 

'  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  pp.  235-236. 

'  Values  and  Patrons  circa  1577 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  xlvii  ;    Barnes,  Visitations,  &-c.,  p.  10. 

3  Newcastle  Public  Library,  Caley  MS.  p.  213.  Under  the  Commutation  of  Tithes  Act,  1835,  the 
Commissioners  appointed  for  the  purpose  gave  to  the  vicar,  /108  p. a.  ;  Dame  Mary  Stanley,  ;£io5  15s.  p.  a. ; 
Sir  Henry  .\skew,  £7  os.  6d.  p.  a.  ;  who  merged  the  same  in  his  property  of  262  a.  2i  r.  17  p.  ;  Christopher 
Fenw-ick,  £104  is.  od.  p.  a.  ;    John  Collingwood,  £4  15s.  6d.  p.  a. 

*  Account  of  ye  Deanery  of  Balmburgh  in  1725,  by  Mr.  Drake — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiqs.  2nd 
series,  vol.  i.  p.  144;  Bishop  Chandler's  Visitation  circa  1736.     Ibid.  vol.  v.  p.  61. 

^  An  account  of  ye  Deanery  of  Balmbrough  in  1725,  by  Mr.  Drake,  vicar  of  Norham — Proceedings  of 
Newcastle  Antiqs.  2nd  series,  vol.  i.  p.  144. 

'  i.e.  puritan. 

'  Bishop  Chandler's  Visitation  circa  1736 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiqs.  2nd  series,  vol.  v.  p.  61. 



Mr.  Stockdale's  days  things  deteriorated  even  more.  His  successor  in 
1758  was  non-resident,  having  been  specially  dispensed  at  his  institution. 
In  reply  to  his  bishop's  queries  he  reported  that  there  was  'neither  glebe 
nor  vicarage  house  in  the  parish  and  it  had  been  looked  on  as  a  sine  cure 

before  I  came  to  it,  at 
least  there  had  been  no 
duty  done  in  it  for  several 
years.'  A  service  with  a 
sermon  was  held  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  last 
Sunday  in  the  month, 
when  there  was  a 
congregation,  an  event 
seemingly  of  uncommon 
occurrence.  In  Lent  the 
children  were  'called  upon 
to  be  catechised,  but  never 
any  appear,'  which  was 
not  surprising  as  the  in- 
habitants were  '  all  of  the 
Presbyterian  Persuasion, 
one  family  only  ex- 
cepted,' and  the  glory  of 
that  one  family  was 
somewhat  dimmed  from 
the  parson's  point  of  view, 
as  half  of  its  members 
were  roman  catholics. 
Of  other  ministrations 
there  were  none.  '  The 
Fig.  4.— branxton.    Chancel  .\rcii.  Holy  Sacrament  has  uever 

been  administered  here  since  I  knew  it,  because  there  is  not  a  congregation.'^ 
The   Church. — Of  the  fabric   of  the  church,   dedicated  to  St.  Paul, 
little  is  known.     At  a  visitation   of   25th   August,    1369,    it   was   reported 
that   the   roofs   both   of   the   chancel  and  the   nave   were   in   decay,    that 

'  Reply  to  Bishop's  Queries,  17.58 — Proceedings  0]  Newcastle  Anliqs.  2nd  series,  vol.  v.  p.  61. 


the  glazing  of  the  chancel  windows  needed  attention,  and  that  the 
font  needed  repair.  The  parishioners  were  accordingly  ordered  to 
undertake  that  portion  of  the  restoration  which  legally  fell  to 
their  share,  namely  the  roof  of  the  nave  and  the  font.^  Excepting 
the  chancel  arch,  the  church  was  rebuilt  in  1849.  It  comprises  a  nave, 
37  feet  6  inches  in  length  by  17  feet  in  width,  a  chancel,  about  12  feet  square, 
and  a  small  square  tower  at  the  north  west  angle  of  the  nave.  In  the  lower 
courses  of  the  masonry  of  both  nave  and  chancel  there  are  indications  of 
old  work,  which  show  that  the  present  building  was  erected  on  the  founda- 
tions of  the  original  church. 

The  details  of  the  ancient  chancel  arch  are  of  late  Norman  or  early 
transitional  character  of  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century.^  The 
jambs  to  the  arch  are  formed  of  a  semi-round  respond,  between  three-quarter 
shafts  which  enclose  the  angles ;  all  have  moulded  bases  on  square  plinths. 
Each  shaft  is  surmounted  by  a  square  simple  scalloped  capital,  the  abacus 
of  which  has  a  quirked  hollow  chamfer  on  its  lower  edge.  The  arch  is  slightly 
pointed,  of  two  chamfered  orders  towards  both  nave  and  chancel.  Between 
the  responds  the  width  is  5  feet  2  inches,  and  the  height  from  the  floor  to 
the  top  of  the  capitals  7  feet ;  to  the  apex  of  the  arch  it  is  10  feet  6  inches. 
The  registers  date  from  1746. 

1200.  Merlin.  Mentioned  as  incumbent  in  the  agreement  between  Durham  and  Kirkham  with 

regard  to  the  church  in  1200,'  and  witnessed  the  confirmation  uf  the  grant  of  Ralph  of 
Branxton  of  the  church  to  Durham  monastery  made  by  Ralph's  son,  Alexander.' 
Gilbert  Aristotil.     Gave  an  undated  guarantee  to  the  prior  and  convent  of  Durham  that 
they  should  lose  nothing  of  the  church  of  Branxton  which  of  charity  they  had  given  him.* 
1234 —  Alan  of  Wakerfeld.     The  archdeacon  of  Northumberland  certified  that  master  Alan  of 

Wakerfeld,  who  lately  was  the  head  of  the  school  of  Durham,  had  been  admitted  to  the 
church  of  Branxton  in  the  year  1234.* 
1251.  Richard  of  Bernil.     Mentioned  as  rector  of  Branxton  in  Bishop  Kirkham's  confirmation 

of  the  allocation  of  Branxton  church  to  the  cell  of  Durham  at  Warkworth.' 

1258 —  Richard  of  Bechefeld.     Presented  to  the  vicarage  of  Branxton  in  1258.' 

1273  Richard  of  Bran.xton.     Mentioned  as  vicar  at  the  ordination  of  the  vicarage  in  1273.' 

'  Durham  Treasury,  i.  i.  Arch.  Northumberland,  No.  11.  '  See  tig.  4. 

^  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  89  ;  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  148-149. 
*  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No.  Dcclxx-xvi.  p.  40. 
'  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No.  Dcclxxxviii.  p.  140. 
^  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No.  Dcclx.xxix.  p.  140. 

'  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No.  Dcc.xc.  p.  140.  '  Durham  Treasury  Mis.  Charters,  5.034*- 

»  Durham  Document — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  132-133.      He  may  possibly  be  identical  with  Richard 
of  Bechefeld. 


1293,  1302.  Roger.     The  grange  of  Roger,  vicar  of  Branxton,  was  burgled  in  1293.'      Sued  for  debt  and 

distraint  ordered  on  his  goods  in  1294,^  a  surety  for  Simon  Coupland  in  1302.'  and  again 
prosecuted  for  debt  in  1300- 1302.*  There  is  no  record  of  his  institution  nor  of  his  resig- 
nation or  death,  and  he  may  well  have  been  identical  with  Roger  Milburn  below. 
—  I3H-  Roger  MiLBTRN.  Probably  identical  with  Roger  above.  In  June,  1314,  the  bishop  of  Dur- 
ham ordered  an  inquiry  as  to  whether  the  vicar  of  Branxton  was  too  infirm  to  do  his 
duty,  the  result  of  which  was  a  declaration  that  he  was  permanently  too  ill  to  administer 
his  cure.'  William  Espeley  was  appointed  on  June  19th  to  administer  the  cure  during 
the  infirmity  of  the  perpetual  vicar,  Roger  Milburn,  who  was  a  permanent  invalid.' 
On  June  27th  Roger  Milburn  resigned.'  In  conflict  with  these  records  is  the  statement 
made  in  1335  by  Robert  Milneburne  in  a  Proof  of  Age,  that  Roger  Milneburnc  was  his 
uncle  and  vicar  of  Branxton  and  that  he  died  on  31st  October  at  Branxton.'  From 
internal  evidence  it  would  seem  that  Robert  meant  1314,  as  his  calculations  of  the  age 
of  John  of  Cramlington  would  otherwise  be  wrong. 

1314 —  William  Espeley.     Given  charge  of  Branxton  June  19,  1314,  as  above,  and  presented  to 

the  living  the  same  month.'     Instituted  August  ist,  1314."" 

1344 — 1357-8.  William  Welkedon.  Instituted  December  nth,  1344.''  He  may  have  been  in  charge  of 
the  cure  at  an  earUer  date  as  receipts  for  his  allowance  of  40s.  given  by  him  as  William 
Weltden,  vicar  of  Branxton,  are  extant  from  1342  to  1357.'^ 

•357-8 —  Robert  Vesey.      A  receipt  was  given  in  1358  by  Robert,  vicar  of  Branxton,  for  his  allow- 

ance of  40s.'*      Randal  gives  Robert  Vesey,  1353,  post  resignatioiiciu,  John  de  Hart,' 
whom  he  places  as  the  successor  of  Welkenden,  whose  death  is  given  wrongly  as  1351." 

1358 — 1364.         John  Schout,  post  resignationem  Vesey." 

1364 — 1367-        Henry  Dalton,  post  resignationem  Schout." 

1367 — 1369.         John  CarlEton,  post  resignationem  Dalton." 

1369 — 1379.  William  Kirkby.  Present  at  visitation  of  1369.""  Receipt  given  in  1371  for  his  allowance 
of  40S."     Died  as  vicar,  1379." 

1379 — 1380.  William  Mytton.  Presented  to  the  vicarage  30th  October,  1379,  on  death  of  William 

1380 — 1395.        Thomas    Kellovv,  post  resignationem  Mytton.'* 

1395 — 1408.        William  Bywell,  post  mortem  Kellow.'* 

1408 — 1416.        John  Durham,  post  mortem  Bywell." 

1416 — 1426.        Robert  Cell.     Instituted  July,  1416."     Randal  gives  the  name  Bell." 

1426 — 1438.         Robert  Dalleston,  post  mortem  Cell." 

1438 — 1443.  Thomas  RadcliffE  Thomas  Ra,  instituted  i6th  July.  1438.^°  Randal  gives  the  name 
Radcliffe,  post  mortem  Dillston.'* 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I.  — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  86  ;   vol.  xviii.  p.  643. 
'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  99,  m.  47  ;    No.  108,  m.  56do. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  pp.  76,  141. 
'  Assize  Roll,  30  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  p.  113. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  135,  m.  258do  ;    No.  139,  m.  i4odo  ;    No.    144,  m.  237do. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  x.Kviii.  pp.  640,  724  ;    vol.  xxix.  pp.  98-99. 

567-568.  '  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm.  vol.  i.  p.  572. 

596-598.  '  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vii.  p.  485. 

596-598.  "  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm.  vol.  i.  pp.  584-585. 


"  Durham   Treasury,  Mis.   Charters,    3,646,   3,985,   4,004,    4,007,    4,0461,   4,052h.       Randal,    State  of  the 
Churches,  gives  an  additional  name,  John  Hart,  1351,  post  mortem  Welkeden. 

"  Durham  Treasury,  Mis.  Charters,  3,627.  "  Randal,  State  of  the  Churches,  p.  21. 

"  Durham  Treasury,  i.  i.  Arch.  Northumb.  No.  II.  "  Durham  Treasury  Mis.  Charters,  3,993. 

"  Durham  Treasury,  i.  2.  Arch.  Northumb.  No.  34. 

"  Durham  Treasury,  i.  2.  Arch.  Northumb.  Nos.  34,  35. 

"  Durham  Treasury,  i.  2.  Arch.  Northumb.  No.  38;  Langley  Register,  fol.  263. 

="  Durham  Treasury,  i.  2.  Arch.  Northumb.  Nos.  36,  37. 


.  pp.  640,  724  ; 




Palat.  Dunelm. 


i.  pp. 


Palat.  Dunelm. 


i.  pp. 

'  Reg. 

Palat.  Dunelm. 


i.  pp. 

'I  Reg. 

Palat.  Dunelm. 


iii.  p. 


1443 — 1449.        William  Hunter,  post  resignationem  Radcliflfe.' 

1449 — 1487.         James  Stephenson,  post  mortem  Hunter.' 

1487 — 1493.         Gilbert  Johnson,  post  resignationem  Stephenson.' 

1493 — 1499.        Robert  Collingwood,  post  mortem  Johnson.' 

1499 — 1528.        Thomas  Goder(;yl.     Inducted,  1449.'      Post  morteni  Collingwood.' 

1528 —  Ralph  Tovvlbery.     Post  mortem  Godergyl.' 

1553 — 1574.        Oliver  Selby.     Died  vicar  of  Branxton,  1574.' 

1574 — 1575.  Bartram  CoGERHAM.  Order  to  induct  Nov.  29th,  1574,  On  death  of  Oliver  Selby.  Presented 
by  John  Selby  of  Bervrick,  kt.,  the  assign  of  Robert  Benet,  declared  the  patron  pro  hac 

1575 —  Roger  Coo.keson.     Post  resignationem  Co^er\\a.m.*     He  appeared  at  a  chancellor's  visitation 

in  January,  1578,  and  at  another  such  visitation  on  July  30th  following  was  admonished 
to  be  prepared  at  the  Michaelmas  Synod  to  perform  his  task  of  giving  an  account  of  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  which  he  had  imperfectly  performed.' 

1580 — 1627.  Stephen  Hudspeth.  Presented  Oct.  4th,  1580,  on  death  of  Cookson.'  Instituted  5th 
August,  1580.'     Mentioned  as  vicar  15th  March,  1605.'^ 

1627 — 1662.        John  Hume,  A.M.     Presented  19th  December,  1627,  post  mortem  Hudspeth.' 

1662 — 1664.        Peter  HousTOUN,  A.M.     Presented  12th  March,  1662,  post  mortem  HuTae.* 

1664 — 1681.        Adam  Felbridge,  post  mortem  Houstoun.^     Incumbent  18th  September,  1675.' 

1681 —  John  Crawford,  ^05/ resiijMa^ionem  Felbridge.*     Instituted  6th  March,  1681.'     Incumbent 


1730 — 1755.        Thomas  Stockdale.       Instituted  12th  September,  1730.'  Incumbent  1736.'° 

1755 — 1799.         William  WhinfiEld,  post  mortem  Stockdale.'     Instituted  4th  October,  1755.' 

1799—1834.  Darcy  Hoggitt,  postmortem  Whinfield,  of  Peterhouse,  Cambridge.  B.A.  1796.  M.A.  i8o6. 
Inducted  to  Branxton  and  licensed  to  the  perpetual  curacy  of  Cornhill  19th  Novem- 
ber,   1799.   Sequestrated  1833.     Deprived  1834." 

1834 — 1870.  Robert  Jones.  Inducted  9th  November,  1834."  Contributed  notes  on  the  Battle  of 
Flodden  to  Arch.  Aeliana,  2nd  series,  vol.  iii.  pp.  231-235,  and  an  account  of  the  battle 
to  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  iv.  pp.  365-389. 

1870 — 1888.  John  Dixon  Hepple,  of  University  College,  Durham.  B.A.  1859.  M.A.  1862.  Inducted 
i6th  September,  1870.     Resigned  1888." 

1888 — 1889.         John  James  Sidlev.     Instituted  oth  February,  1889.'- 

1890 — 1905.        Arthur  Blenkinsop  Coulson,  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford.     B.A.   1865.     Instituted  19th 
October,  1890.'^ 

1906 —  Charles  Ernest  Hoyle,  of  Queen's  College,  Cambridge.     B.A.  1888.     M.A.  1902.     Instit- 

uted loth  March,  1906.'- 

'  Randal,  Slate  of  the  Churches,  p.  2 1 . 

^  Durham  Treasury,  1,  2.  Arch.  Northumb.  No.  39.  '  Sharp  MS.  49,  p.  26. 

'  Randal,  State  of  the  Churches,  p.  21.  '  Barnes  Injunctions,  &-c.,  pp.  40,  77. 

^  Sharp  MS.  49,  p.  24.  '  P.R.O.  Liber  Institutionum. 

*  List  of  Incumbents  in  Rawlinson  MS.  B  250,  fol.  22 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiqs.  3rd  series,  vol.  ii. 
p.  Ii8. 

•Account  of  ye  Deanery  of  Balmbrough  by  Mr.    Drake — Proceedings  0/  Newcastle  Antiqs.  2nd  series, 
vol.  i.  p.  144. 

'"  Bishop  Chandler's  Visitation — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiquaries,  2nd  series,  vol.  v.  p.  61. 

"  Branxton  Register.  "  Diocesan  Registry. 

"  Consistory  Court  Visitation  Books. 




The  township  of  Branxton^  has  hved  its  hfe  far  from  the  world's  activi- 
ties. To  this  day  it  stands  on  no  high  road,  a  httle  hamlet  outside  the  ken 
of  business  men,^  and  only  known  in  later  days  to  the  tourist  because  hard 
by  was  fought  one  of  the  bloodiest  battles  between  Scots  and  English. 
Like  so  many  of  these  villages  of  Glendale,  its  only  share  in  the  annals  of 

>  A'zrV 

Fig.  5  — Cottages  at    Branxton 

national  history  is  to  be  found  within  the  limits  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
In  the  middle  ages  it  knew  no  lord  of  the  manor  save  the  hospital  of  St. 
Thomas,  Bolton,  no  band  of  feudal  retainers  visited  it  to  consume 
the  product  of  its  fields,  no  change  of  master  called  for  an  inquest 
on  the  dead  owner's  lands.  Great  must  have  been  the  excitement 
over  such  an  incident  as  the  burglary   of    the    vicar's   grange   in  1293,^ 

'  Earlier  Brankeston,  Branxston,  Branxton,  contains  a  personal  name  as  its  first  element.     It  was  probably 
Brannoc  a  dimin.  of  Brand,  a  name  found  also  in  Branscombe,  Dev.,  and  Branxholm,  Roxburgh. 

-  The  Census  Returns  are  :   1801,209;   1811,261;   1821,  253  ;  1831,  249;   1841,261;    1851,284;    1861. 
255  ;    1871,  234;     1881,  221;    1891,  222  ;    igoi,  165  ;    1911,  175.        The  township  comprises  1507-229  acres. 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  pp.  68,  86. 


or  the  accidental  burning  down  in  1256  of  a  female  weaver's  house, 
while  she  was  absent,  with  a  hapless  boy  of  two  years  old  inside.^ 
The  population  can  never  have  been  large,  and  in  1296  there  were 
only  nine  persons  assessed  for  the  subsidy,  their  united  chattels  reach- 
ing only  to  the  total  value  of  £23  14s.  3d.2  The  only  incidents  which 
have  ever  disturbed  the  sleepy  serenity  of  the  place  have  been  the  periodical 
Scottish  raids.  Lying  on  the  edge  of  a  plain  stretching  to  the  banks  of  the 
Tweed,  with  no  shelter  designed  by  nature  from  the  Scots  save  the  river, 
Branxton  could  not  expect  to  escape  paying  the  penalty  of  its  proximity 
to  the  border.  The  losses  of  the  township  during  the  middle  ages  are  largely 
unrecorded,  but  an  echo  of  the  Scottish  incursion  of  1340^  is  heard  four  years 
later,  when  the  men  of  the  township  sought  a  remission  of  taxation  on  the 
ground  that  their  crops  and  goods  had  been  wholly  destroyed  on  that  occa- 
sion.* Towards  the  end  of  the  same  century  there  is  further  evidence  that 
the  township  had  suffered  from  the  Scots,  for  in  1381  the  church  of  Branxton 
was  included  among  the  benefices  so  wasted  and  impoverished  that  they 
could  not  contribute  anything  to  a  clerical  subsidy  of  that  year,^  nor  was 
anything  procured  from  the  parish  in  1409  towards  the  tenth  exacted  from 
ecclesiastical  benefices  for  the  expenses  of  representatives  sent  to  the  council 
of  Pisa.^  During  the  great  era  of  border  warfare  we  hear  more  of  the  losses 
incurred  by  the  township,  despite  the  fact  that  a  tower  had  been  built  there 
as  early  as  1522,  when  Lord  Dacre  proposed  to  place  ten  men  with  William 
Selby  therein  for  the  defence  of  the  border."  In  October,  1523,  the  laird  of 
Wedderburn  crossed  the  Tweed  with  1,000  men  near  Bingham  in  a  lightning 
raid,  which  achieved  no  more  than  the  burning  of  some  waste  houses  in 
Branxton,  Cornhill  and.  Learmouth,^  doubtless  being  only  a  reconnaissance 
in  force,  preparatory  to  the  duke  of  Albany's  abortive  invasion  in  the  French 
interest.  The  Scots  were  across  the  border  in  the  following  February,  when 
Lennox  led  a  foray  which  burnt  Branxton,  Cornhill  and  Ford,  and  returned 
with  impunity,  as  the  men  of  Glendale  refused  to  march  against  the  invader 

*  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Society),  p.  107  ;  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  397. 
^  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296.  fol.  104.  '  Knighton,  vol.  ii.  pp.  16,  17. 

'  Ca/.  o/P«(eK( /?oHs,  1343-1345,  p.  409  ;    1345-1348,  p.  103-104  ;    1349-1354,  p.  613  ;    1354-1360,  pp.  71, 
120,  185,  410  ;   Bain,  Cal.  0/  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  262. 

'  Account  of  Collector  of  clerical  subsidy,  4  Ric.  II. — Ford  Tithe  Case.  pp.  214-215. 
'  Account  of  Collector  of  Ecclesiastical  Tenth,  June,  1409 — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  217. 
'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  iii.  pt.  iii.  p.  852. 
'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  1450. 

Vol.  XI.  14 


unless  they  were  paid  the  same  wages  as  they  had  received  in  the  time  oi 
open  war  the  previous  year,^  an  eloquent  commentary  on  the  lack  of  corporate 
feeling  among  the  borderers.  Within  nine  years  Branxton  was  suffering 
once  more  from  its  proximity  to  the  Tweed,  for  one  of  the  raids  which  syn- 
chronized with  the  expiration  of  the  five  years  peace  signed  in  1528,  brought 
Dan  Carr  of  Ferniehirst  with  the  sheriff  of  Ayr  and  three  or  four  hundred 
of  Murray's  army  lying  at  Melrose  to  the  township,  with  the  consequent 
loss  of  houses  and  stacks  by  fire,  though  the  raiders  were  too  hurried  to 
destroy  everything. ^  It  was  probably  at  or  about  this  time  that  the  '  lytle 
tower,'  which  gave  shelter  to  the  inhabitants  on  these  occasions,  was  des- 
troyed by  the  Scots,  but  by  1541  it  had  been  repaired  by  its  owner,  John 
Selby,  and  the  lands  of  the  township  were  once  more  in  full  cultivation.^ 
Of  destructive  raids  we  hear  no  more,  but  occasionally  the  Selbys  had  their 
live  stock  stolen  by  Scottish  thieves.  In  1553  no  less  than  400  sheep  were 
driven  off  on  one  occasion,*  and  in  1596  William  Selby  was  informed  by  his 
uncle  that  one  of  his  tenants  at  Branxton  had  been  despoiled  of  sixteen 
cattle  and  four  score  sheep  by  marauders  making  their  way  home  from  an 
unsuccessful  effort  at  Downham.^ 

The  township  is  famous  in  national  history  as  the  scene  of  the  battle 
which,  quite  erroneously,  has  taken  its  name  from  Flodden,  the  site  of  the 
original  position  taken  up  by  the  Scots.  It  was  indeed  on  Flodden  Hill,  that 
on  9th  September,  1513,  King  James  IV.  realised  that  his  enemies  had 
placed  themselves  between  his  armies  and  Scotland  by  marching  from 
Wooler  Haugh  by  Barmoor  and  crossing  the  Till.  The  van  of  the  English 
army  under  the  Lord  High  Admiral,  Thomas,  Lord  Howard,  crossed  at 
Twizel  Bridge  and  marched  to  a  spot  which  must  have  been  hard  by  the 
gathering  stone  on  Crookham  moor,  there  to  be  joined  by  the  rear  under 
the  earl  of  Surrey,  which  had  forded  the  river  probably  at  the  Mill  ford, 
near  Heton  castle.  Between  the  English  and  the  foot  of  the  rising  ground, 
on  which  the  village  of  Branxton  rested,  there  lay  a  moss,  and  while  the  van 
negotiated  this  obstacle  by  traversing  a  track  across  it,  known  as  the  Branx 
Bridge,  the  rear  skirted  round  its  eastern  end.  So  soon  as  the  Scottish 
king  realized  that  his  lines  of   communication  were  threatened,  he  moved 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  iv.  pt.  i.  pp.  48,  49,  60,  89,  113. 

•  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  vi.  p.  20.  '  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

•  Ralph  Grey  to  the  Queen — Raine's  North  Durham,  p.  xxviii.        '  Cat.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  213. 


his  army  from  Flodden  Edge  on  to  Branxton  Hill,  which  he  rightly  judged 
to  be  the  key  to  the  strategical  situation  and  the  objective  of  the  English 
forces,  a  manoeuvre  which  he  accomplished  under  cover  of  a  dense  smoke 
screen  caused  by  the  burning  of  the  camp  litter  on  Flodden.     It  thus  came 
about  that  the  vanguards  of  the  two  opposing  armies,  both  making  for  the 
same  objective,  were  within  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of  each  other  before  the 
English  were  aware  of  the  proximity  of  the  Scots.     The  latter  were  arranged 
in  five  divisions, '  in  grete  plumpes,  part  of  them  quadrant, '^  the  van  consisting 
of  the  earl  of  Home's  border  horse  and  the  earl  of  Huntley's  Gordon  high- 
landers,  the  second  of  troops  led  by  the  earls  of  Crawford  and  Errol,  the  third 
of  the  men  under  the  immediate  command  of  the  king,  the  fourth  seemingly 
of  miscellaneous  levies  under  the  earl  of  Bothwell  and  the  seigneur  d'Aussi, 
while  the  rearguard  consisted  of  the  Highland  battalions  of  the  earls  of  Lennox 
and  Argyle,  probably  in  all  some  60,000  men.     As  these  various  divisions 
reached  the  battlefield,  they  fell  into  array  in  one  line,  the  van  becoming 
the  left  and  the  rearguard  the  right  wing  of  the  army,  while  the  division 
under  Bothwell  and  Aussi,  finding  itself  in  a  little  valley  somew^hat  behind 
the  rest  of  the  line,  naturally  became  a  reserve.     Meanwhile  on  the  other 
side  the  English  army  was  falling  into  battle  array.     The  first  division  of 
the  van,  consisting  of  some  3,000  men  under  Sir  Edmund  Howard,  found 
itself  on  the  extreme  right  opposite  to  the  earls  of  Home  and  Huntley.     Next 
came  the  main  body  of  the  vanguard  numbering  some  9,000  under  the 
command  of  the  Admiral,  Thomas,  Lord  Howard,  and  on  his  left  was  the  third 
division  of  the  van  under  Sir  Marmaduke  Constable.     The  first  division  of 
the  rearguard  under  Lord  Dacre,  instead  of  falling  into  the  line,  was  used  as 
a  reserve  and  came  early  into  action  in  support  of  the  right  wing,  but  the  ■ 
second  division,  under  the  English  commander-in-chief  in  person,  came  into 
line  opposite  the  royal  division  on  the  Scottish  side,  and  the  last  xmder  Sir 
Edward  Stanley  formed  the  left  wing  of  the  English  army.     In  all  the 
English  are  said  to  have  had  26,000,  or  according  to  another  estimate,  nearly 
40,000,  men  in  the  field. 

Battle  was  naturally  first  joined  by  the  vanguards  of  the  two  armies, 
as  they  came  into  position  first,  and  steadily  the  struggle  extended  till  the 
whole  front  was  involved.  The  left  wing  of  the  Scots,  discarding  its  horses, 
threw  itself  on  to  the  little  body  commanded  by  Sir  Edmund  Howard  on  the 

•  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII   vol.  i.  p.  667. 


extreme  right  oi  the  Enghsh  hne,  and  at  first  bore  all  before  it.  Sir  Edmund 
put  up  a  plucky  resistance,  and  was  supported  among  others  by  the  stout 
hearted  Bastard  of  Heron,  but  his  command  was  only  rescued  from  annihi- 
lation by  the  timely  arrival  of  the  reserve  under  Lord  Dacre,  who,  despite 
the  desertion  of  the  men  of  Tynemouth  and  Roxburghshire  without  striking 
a  blow,  managed  to  prevent  the  discomfiture  of  the  right  developing  into  a 
rout.  The  Admiral,  in  command  of  the  main  body  of  the  right  wing,  was 
now  hotly  engaged,  and  before  succour  came,  had  sent  a  despairing  cry 
for  help  to  his  father,  the  earl  of  Surrey.  Amidst  the  wildest  and  fiercest 
hand-to-hand  fighting  the  advance  of  the  Scots  was  stayed,  and  ultimately 
turned  into  retreat.  First  the  Scottish  second  division  was  driven  back, 
the  earl  of  Crawford  slain  and  the  earl  of  Errol  forced  to  abandon  his  standard, 
then  Lord  Home  with  the  first  division,  left  unsupported  on  his  right,  was 
compelled  to  follow  suit. 

Meanwhile  the  two  centres  had  joined  issue.  Carried  away  by  the 
initial  success  of  his  left  wing,  King  James  led  his  division  to  the  attack: 
he  and  his  nobles  dismounted  and  even  shed  their  boots  so  as  to  avoid  slipping 
on  the  treacherous  slope.  Regardless  of  his  duties  as  a  general,  the  Scottish 
king  pressed  into  the  fray,  and  the  battle  here  swayed  backwards  and 
forwards  with  no  marked  success  on  either  side.  The  tide  was  turned  by  the 
English  left  wing  under  Sir  Edward  Stanley,  which,  following  the  example 
of  the  Scots,  went  barefooted  to  the  attack.  This  body  stormed  the  slope 
without  meeting  with  much  resistance,  being  doubtless  as  superior  in  numbers 
to  its  opponents  as  was  the  Scottish  left  wing  to  the  English  right.  Once 
on  the  high  ground,  the  English  left  put  the  earls  of  Lennox  and  Argyle 
to  flight,  and  then  threw  itself  onto  the  flank  of  the  Scottish  centre  just  at 
the  time  that  Dacre  charged  down  on  it  from  the  right.  The  Scottish 
reserves  under  Bothwell  had  already  been  thrown  into  the  fray  in  a  vain 
attempt  to  check  Stanley's  advance,  and  no  succour  was  possible  save  from 
the  left  wing  where  Lord  Home,  though  driven  back,  had  not  been  pursued 
by  the  wise  Admiral.  Whether  for  reasons  of  selfishness,  since  for  him 
escape  across  the  border  was  possible,  or  for  reasons  of  ignorance.  Lord  Home 
never  moved,  and  overborne  on  all  sides,  James  fell  fighting  to  the  last,  while 
the  remnant  of  his  division  broke  and  fled.  At  nightfaU,  when  the  battle  had 
been  raging  for  hardly  three  hours,  the  earl  of  Surrey  called  a  halt.  The 
English  army  encamped  on  the  field  of  battle  as  did  also  the  force  of  Lord 



Home  close  by,  but  when  morning  broke  the  still  unbeaten  Scottish  left  wing 
melted  away  so  soon  as  it  realized  the  extent  to  which  disaster  had  visited 
the  rest  of  the  arm}'.  Thus  ended  the  field  of  Branxton,  as  it  was  correctly 
called  for  some  years  after  the  event,  and  to-day  only  a  cross  erected  to  the 
memory  of  the  brave  of  both  nations  recalls  the  most  famous  battle  fought 
within  the  borders  of  Northumberland.^ 

Descent  of  the  Property. — The  township  of  Branxton  was 
parcel  of  the  barony  of  Muschamp,^  to  which  in  1254  it  rendered  'yearly  of 
farm  at  Michaelmas  i6s.  for  everything.'^  On  the  division  of  the  inheritance 
this  rent  was  allotted  to  Muriel,  countess  of  Mar,*  from  whom  it  passed  to 
Nicholas  Graham  and  his  wife  Mary,^  and  ultimately  to  the  Darcy  family.^ 
By  1399  to  this  had  been  added  another  rent  of  6s.  from  the  township."  At 
the  splitting  up  of  this  inheritance  in  1419  this  rent  passed  into  the  family 
of  Conyers.^  What  became  of  it  later  we  do  not  know,  but  in  15 10  it  was 
presumably  in  the  hands  of  the  crown,  for  in  that  year  a  royal  grant  during 
pleasure  of  the  towns  of  Branxton  and  Bowsden  of  the  annual  value  of  40s, 
was  made  to  Sir  Edmund  Radcliffe,  knight  of  the  body,  and  Roger  Fenwick, 
squire  of  the  same,  lieutenants  of  the  Middle  Marches,  in  consideration  of 
their  expenses  in  the  king's  affairs  on  the  Marches,^  and  this  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  estate  in  Branxton  and  Bowsden  owned  by  Sir  John  Conyers 
at  his  death  in  1490.1° 

The  rent  of  i6s.  seems  to  have  been  paid  in  the  fourteenth  century  by 
the  hospital  of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton, ^^  but  no  traces  of  property  in  Branxton 
are  to  be  found  in  its  charters. ^^  -pj^e  grantee  was  probably  the  tenant  in 
socage,  and  we  have  presumptive  evidence  of  the  descent  of  these  lands 
towards  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century  from  charters  conferring  and 
confirming  the  gift  of  the  church  to  the  monastery  of  Durham.     A  certain 

1  The  best  accounts  of  the  battle  are  to  be  found  in  two  articles  by  Dr.  Thomas  Hodgkin  and  Mr.  Cad- 
wallader  F.  Bates  in  Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvi.  For  an  analysis  of  the  original  authorities  on  which  these 
accounts  are  based  see  ibid.  pp.  253-254.  Cf.  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  197  et  seq.  ;  vol.  v.  p.  175  et  seq.  ;  vol.  vi. 
p.  69.     Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  iv.  pp.  365-3S9  ;     vol.  xx.  pp.  290-306. 

^  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  210. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  39  Hen.  HI.  No.  40 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  371. 

*  Inq.  p.m.  25  Edw.  I.  No.  26 — Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  258. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  iv.  p.  237. 

'  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  pp.  64,  65.  For  details  of  this  descent  see  pages  311-315. 

''Inq.  p.m.  22  Ric.  II.  No.  17 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx-xviii.  p.  338. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  (second  series),  vol.  i.  p.  260.  '  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  i.  p.  155. 

'°  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  (second  series),  vol.  i.  p.  260.  "  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  65. 

'-  Monasticon,  vol.  vi.  pt.  ii.  p.  692. 


Gilbert  of  Branxton  was  the  father  of  Ralph  of  Branxton,  who  made  the 
gift.  Ralph  had  a  son  Alexander,^  who  in  1208  carried  through  an  exchange 
of  lands  with  Theobald  of  Shotton  by  receiving  nine  carucates  of  land  in 
Branxton  and  Howtel  together  with  a  moiety  of  the  capital  messuage  (in 
Branxton  seemingly)  and  a  moiety  of  the  service  of  Stephen  of  Howtel  for  the 
whole  vill  of  Howtel,  in  return  for  a  moiety  of  the  vill  of  Branxton  and  of 
the  demesne  and  garden  there.  In  this  moiety  were  contained  the  holdings 
of  Roger  son  of  Ernold,  Martin  son  of  Henry,  Gospatric  son  of  Orm,  Stephen 
son  of  Eldulf,  Malcolm  son  of  Ulfkil,  Jacob  son  of  Gospatric,  and  Alexander 
Faber,  as  also  one  toft  which  belonged  to  Tunnolf  son  of  Eugred,  a  bovate 
of  land  held  by  Adam  Carpenter,  a  messuage  which  belonged  to  Gilbert 
Despenser  and  a  moiety  of  the  service  of  Adam  son  of  Gillimichael,  for  one 
quarter  of  the  vill.^  Doubtless  Theobald  of  Shotton  is  identical  with  the 
Theobald  of  Branxton  whose  three  daughters  and  co-heiresses  confirmed 
the  gift  to  the  church,  since  they  seem  to  have  been  called  upon  to  do  so 
as  holders  of  the  land  once  belonging  to  Ralph  of  Branxton.  They  were 
Christine,  married  to  John  Marshal  of  Branxton,  Matilda,  wife  of  Dolfin, 
and  Anabel,  wife  of  Roger,  the  first  named  being  alive  in  1241,  though  her 
husband  was  dead.^  Thus  it  would  seem  that  one  moiety  of  Branxton  was 
held  by  Theobald,  to  whom  his  daughters  succeeded,  while  the  other  was 
held  by  Alexander.  The  latter  also  inherited  lands  in  Bowsden,  and  both 
he  and  his  father  were  indifferently  described  as  of  Branxton  and  of  Bowsden. 
His  son  William  succeeded  him  in  his  property,*  which  explains  the  statement 
in  the  Testa  de  Nevill  that  the  heirs  of  William  of  Bowsden  held  Bowsden 
and  Branxton  in  socage  of  the  barony  of  Muschamp  for  755.^  H  is  not 
clear  which  of  these  two  families  gave  their  property  to  the  hospital,  indeed 
they  may  both  have  done  so,  as  the  major  part  of  the  vill  evidently  was  held 
by  it  in  free  alms  in  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century.^  In  1335  Thomas 
of  Bamburgh,  its  warden,  was  granted  free  warren  for  himself  and  his 
successors  in  their  demesne  lands  in  Branxton,'  which  is  the  first  definite 

•  Undated  documents — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  147,  148  ;  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  Nos.  Dcclx.xix., 
Dcclxxxvi.  pp.  139,  140. 

'  Pedes  Finiuin,  10  John  No.  14 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  pp.  50-51. 

'  Documents  from  Durham  Treasurj' — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  147,  148  ;     Raine,  North  Durham, 
App.  Nos.  Dcclxxx.-Dcclxxxv.  pp.  139-140. 

*  Documents  from  Durham  Treasury — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.   147  ;     Raine,  North  Durham,   .'\pp. 
Nos.  Dcclxxiv.,  Dcclxxv.,  Dccl-xxx.,  pp.   138-139. 

'  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  219.  °  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  65. 

'  Cal.  oj  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  328. 


intimation  that  the  hospital  held  lands  there,  but  there  is  strong  presump- 
tive evidence  that  its  title  dated  back  to  1285,  when  Hugh  of  Norham 
sought  the  king's  intervention  in  a  complaint  against  Gilbert  of  Shireburn, 
master  of  the  hospital  of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton.  It  seems  that  the  master 
with  certain  brothers  of  his  house  and  several  others  had  malignantly  burnt 
the  complainant's  house  in  Branxton  and  had  carried  off  goods  thence  to  the 
value  of  £40.^  This  master  seemingly  had  a  passion  for  breaking  into 
houses,  that  is  if  another  case  heard  in  1293  is  not  another  variation  of  the 
story  told  in  1285.  A  jury  then  presented  him  with  two  others,  both  of 
whom  had  figured  in  the  former  case,  of  coming  to  the  vill  of  Branxton  one 
fine  day  to  the  house  of  the  master  there,  where  they  found  one  Hugh  of 
Branxton  who  refused  to  leave  it.  Thereupon  fire  was  set  to  the  house. 
Not  much  damage  was  caused,  as  the  master  had  the  fire  put  out  at  once, 
but  his  associates  were  fined  for  causing  a  breach  of  the  peace,  though  they 
were  acquitted  of  stealing  a  coat  of  mail  and  a  basin,  with  the  theft  of  which 
they  had  been  charged. ^ 

Some  small  holding  of  land  in  Branxton  was  also  held  by  the  Hospitallers, 
since,  during  the  Quo  Warranto  proceedings,  the  prior  of  the  hospital  of  St. 
John  of  Jerusalem  in  England  put  in  a  claim  to  waif,  the  fines  of  his  men 
wherever  condemned,  the  regulation  of  the  assize  of  beer,  the  goods  of  his 
men  if  they  fled  from  justice,  the  right  to  pass  judgment  on  felons  and  to 
enjoy  the  royal  right  of  annum  et  vast  urn  in  the  township,  basing  it  on  a 
charter  of  Henry  HI.,  save  the  right  of  regulating  the  assize  of  beer,  which 
he  had  of  ancient  usage. ^  Even  this  did  not  end  the  tale  of  land  held  by 
ecclesiastical  foundations,  for  in  1345  Sir  Robert  Manners  endowed  his  newly 
founded  chapel  of  St.  Mary  at  Etal  with  five  messuages  and  107  acres  of 
land  situated  partly  in  Hetherslaw  and  partly  in  Branxton,  though  this  did 
not  comprise  the  whole  of  his  property  in  these  townships.* 

We  have  no  knowledge  what  became  of  this  extensive  ecclesiastical 
property  at  the  Dissolution.     Two  families  appear  as  chief  landowners  in  the 

'  Cal.  oj  Patent  Rolls,  1281-1292,  p.  199  ;  Assize  Rolls,  Divers  Counties,  13  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  XX.  pp.  207-208. 

-  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  96.  On  yet  another  occasion  Gilbert  of 
Shireburn  was  in  the  courts,  when  in  1 2S7  he  failed  to  put  in  a  defence  against  John  of  Branxton  who  accused 
him  of  disseizing  him  of  his  common  pasture  in  the  vill.  Assise  Roll,  No.  loSo  (York),  15  Edw.  i. — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  11 16. 

»  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  3S3-385  ;    Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  130-131. 

»  Inq.  A.Q.D.  cclxxv.  No.  12.  Licence  to  alienate  in  mortmain.  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  I343-I345.  P-  529  ; 
Rot.  Fin.  19  Edw.  III.  Grossi  Fines,  m.  2 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxi.  pp.  289-290. 


sixteenth  century,  and  of  these  that  of  the  Manners  had  close  connection  with 
the  collegiate  church  of  Bolton,  for  Thomas,  earl  of  Rutland,  was  its  patron 
in  1515.^  This  same  earl,  together  with  Thomas  Manners,  owned  part  of  the 
town  of  Branxton  in  1541,-  the  latter  being  Thomas  Manners  of  Cheswick, 
who  by  his  will  dated  6th  November,  1551,  left  to  his  brother,  Henry  Manners, 
20s.  worth  of  land  in  Branxton  for  life.^  A  member  of  the  same  family,  whose 
surname  alone  is  given,  held  certain  lands  there  in  capite  in  1568.*  Tliis  may 
have  been  the  Thomas  Manners  of  Cheswick  in  Islandshire  who  in  his  will 
dated  12th  January,  1393,  bequeathed  all  his  lands  and  hereditaments  in 
Branxton  and  Paston  to  his  eldest  son  George  and  the  legitimate  heirs  of 
his  body,  and  failing  them  to  his  son  Henry  and  his  heirs. ^  It  may  be  that 
these  lands  were  part  of  the  spoils  of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton,  and  perhaps,  too, 
the  lands  originally  given  by  the  family  to  the  chapel  of  Etal,  but  what  became 
of  them  in  the  seventeenth  century  we  do  not  know,  save  that  none  of 
them  passed  with  the  other  Rutland  estates  to  the  crown. 

The  other  family  owned  the  larger  part  of  the  township,  and  appeared 
in  connection  therewith  for  the  first  time  in  1480  when  an  inquisition  post 
mortem  found  that  William  Selby  of  Branxton  had  died  seised  of  no  lands. ^ 
About  1522  the  name  reappears  in  the  person  of  John  Selby  of  Branxton, 
who  is  described  as  a  'sharpe  borderer','  and  who  was  the  son  and  heir  of 
William  Selby  of  Branxton.^  There  are  allusions  in  1537,  1538  and  1540 
to  the  same  man,^  but  it  is  not  till  1541  that  we  find  him  described  as  the 
chief  landowner  in  the  township. i"  Apparently  he  was  resident  here  when 
not  engaged  in  his  duties  as  porter  of  Berwick,!^  an  office  which  he  was  within 
an  ace  of  losing  owing  to  reports  of  his  misbehaviour  in  1557.^^  In  his  will 
dated  27th  February,  1565,  he  described  himself  as  'Gentyleman  Porter  of 
Berwycke,'  and  left  to  his  wife  Elizabeth  a  life  interest  in  'the  toure  of 
Brankstone  with  the  two  plewegait  of  land'  and  all  commodities  thereto 

'  Ashmole,  MS.  848,  cited  in  Doyle,  Baronage,  vol.  iii.  p.  190. 

a  Survey  of  the  Border.  1541— Border  Holds,  p.  34.  3  Rainc,  Teslamenta,  vol.  vi.  p.  7. 

*  Liher  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixix.  =  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  pp.  218-219. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  20  Edw.  IV.  No.  i. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  278. 

'  Cotton  MS.  Caligula  B.  vi.  fol.  504.    The  date  of  this  is  given  as  1522  with  a  query.     A  transcript 
in  the  Hodgson-Hindi'  Transcripts,  p.  51,  gives  the  date  as  circa  1536. 

»  Deed  dated  February  ist,  1520— Dods worth  MS.  49,  fol.  8  ;   Lansdowne  MS.  326.  fol.  52. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  .xii.  pt.  ii.  p.  104  ;    vol.  xiii.  pt.  i.  p.  179  ;    vol.  xv.  p.  193. 
"  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

"  Despatch  of  Kalf  Grey  to  the  Queen,  Aug.  6,  1553— Rainc,  North  Durham,  p.  xxviii. 
'^  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  vol.  vi.  p.  79. 


1.  Seal  of  Ralph  of  Branxton.     A  pair  of  " bninks." 


— Ouilt.  Trcas.,  3"°  i™"°  Specialia  50. 

2.  Seal  of  Ralph  of  Rranxton.     Two  pairs  of  "  braiiks." 


—  Diirli.  Trcas.,  3'='"  i"'^"  Specialia  49. 

3.  Seal  of  William  of  Branxton.     A  pair  of  "hranks"  between  a  crescent  and  a  star. 


— Durh.  Treas.,  3""  1°""'  Specialia  46. 

4.  Seal  of  Robert  of  Muscanip.     Armorial,  two  bars  and  a  chief. 


— Durh.  Treas.,  2""^  1""=  Specialia  36. 

5.  Seal  of  Jordan  Heron.     A  beast  passant. 

y{<  SIGILLVM  :  lORDANI  :  HERVN  : 

— Durii.   Treas.,  2''*  12™!"=  .Specialia   13. 

6.  Seal  of  William  Heron  (a.d.   1359).     Armorial,  three  herons. 

sigillu  .  toiUclmi  .  bcrouit 

—Durh.  Treas.,  Loc.  XXVIII.  9. 

7.  Seal  of  Jordan  Heron.     A  heron. 


— Durh.  Treas.,  1^  i^™*"  Specialia  21. 

8.  Seal  of  Ralph   Heron.     A  heron. 


— Durh.  Treas.,  2^^  i2""«  Specialia   10. 

9.  Seal  of  Thomas  of  Muscamp.     Seven  flies  (muscarum  campus). 


— Durh.  Treas.,  3"^'^  1"""=  Specialia  56. 

Plate   11 



belonging,  then  in  the  occupation  of  his  son  John,  together  with  'half  the 
cotlands  and  cottages  belonging  to  him  there.'  The  son  was  to  inherit  the 
whole  of  his  property  in  the  township,  subject  to  the  above  hfe  interest, 
and  in  addition  the  advowson  of  the  church  and  the  tithes.^  He  also  suc- 
ceeded his  father  as  gentleman  porter  of  Berwick,^  and  in  1581  he  made 
elaborate  provision  for  the  descent  of  his  lands,  consisting  of  the  manor  of 
Branxton,  three  messuages,  30  cottages,  30  tofts,  10  dovecotes,  40  gardens, 
40  orchards  and  land,  wood  and  turbary  with  20s.  rent  and  common  of 
pasture  for  all  beasts  in  Branxton,  Moneylaws,  Paston,  Shotton  and  Wooler. 
All  this  was  entailed  on  his  son  and  heir,  William,  and  the  heirs  male  of  his 
body,  and  in  default  in  tail  male  to  his  other  sons,  Ralph  and  John,  and  his 
brothers,  William  and  Ralph,  successively.  In  case  of  the  failure  of  all 
these  the  property  was  to  pass  to  Lancelot  Selby  of  'Emontilles,'  and  in 
default  successively  in  tail  male  to  Lancelot's  brother  William,  Roland  Selby 
of  Cornhill,  and  his  brothers,  Gilbert  and  George,  John  Selby  of  Learmouth, 
and  his  brothers,  Roger,  Thomas  and  Peter,  George  Selby  of  'Eryndon,'  and 
his  brothers,  William,  John,  Thomas  and  Henry,  Roger  Selby  of  'Erynden 
Rygge,'  and  his  brothers,  William,  Francis,  George  and  Ralph,  William 
Selby,  merchant  of  Newcastle,  and  finally  in  default  of  all  these  to  his  own 
right  heirs. ^  In  1592  the  manor  of  Branxton  and  Moneylaws  and  30  mes- 
suages, six  tofts,  one  dovecote,  30  gardens  and  land,  furze  and  heath  in 
Branxton  and  Carham  were  the  subject  of  a  fine  between  William  Selby, 
senior,  and  John  Shafto  of  the  one  part,  and  John  Selby,  knight,  and  Margaret 
his  wife,  William  Selby,  junior,  Ralph  Selby  and  John  Selby,  junior,  of  the 
other  part.*  Sir  John  Selby  was  doubtless  the  same  man  as  the  author  of 
the  entail  quoted  above,  and  those  associated  with  him  would  be  his  three 
sons,  William,  Ralph  and  John,  while  William  Selby,  senior,  would  be  his 
brother  of  that  name.  William  Selby,  junior,  later  Sir  Wilham,  succeeded 
to  the  property  before  1506,^  and  seemingly  was  appointed  to  assist  his  uncle 
of  the  same  name  as  gentleman  porter.^  In  1630  he  succumbed  to  the  family 
passion  for  elaborate  entails.  By  this  time  the  Selby  property  had  been 
much  increased,  for  it  comprised  besides  the  manors  of  Branxton  and  Money- 

1  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  pp.  235-236.  -  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  vol.  vii.  ji.  2.|<) ;  vol.  viii.  p.  400. 

'  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  45.  *  Ibid.,  p.  5o. 

'  Note  in  Burghley's  hand  on  letter  from  William  Selby — Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  213. 

'  Acts  of  the  Privv  Council,  vol.  xxx.  p.  241.  The  uncle,  Sir  William,  by  his  will  dated  19  May,  1610, 
left  money  to  the  poor  of  Branxton.  Raine,  Teslamenta,  vol.  vi.  p.  29.  Printed  in  Miscellanea  Genealogica 
et  Heraldica,  vol.  i.  pp.  15-19. 

Vol.   XI.  15 


laws  and  the  capital  messuage  of  Moneylaws,  the  manor  of  Lowick,  lands 
in  Cheviot  and  di\-ers  lands  and  tenements  in  Lowick,  Branxton,  Moneylaws 
and  elsewhere,  including  extensive  property  in  Norham,  all  valued  at  £2,000 
a  year  and  upwards.  All  the  above  property  was  settled  on  himself  and 
his  wife  and  the  heirs  male  of  his  body,  with  remainder  in  tail  male  succes- 
sively to  William,  John  and  Lancelot,  sons  of  his  brother,  Sir  Ralph  Selby, 
and  to  his  brother,  Sir  John  Selby.  In  default  of  these,  Robert  Selby  of 
Berwick  was  to  inherit  for  life  with  remainder  in  tail  male  to  his  eldest  son 
William,  and  successive  remainders  in  tail  male  to  John  Selby,  son  of  one 
William  Selby,  prebendary  of  Durham,  George  Selby  of  Cornhill,  Thomas 
Selby  of  Bamburgh,  and  Richard  Selby,  the  last  three  being  brothers.^ 
According  to  a  bill  presented  to  the  court  of  exchequer  in  1684,  Sir 
William  Selby  died  without  male  issue,  and  so  also  did  his  nephews, 
and  his  brother  John,  Robert  Selby  of  Berwick,  the  latter's  son 
\^'illiam,  and  John  and  William,-  sons  of  William  Selby  the  pre- 
bendary. The  estates  therefore  descended  to  George  Selby  of  Corn- 
hill,^  who  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Rowland,  and  he  in  turn  by 
his  son  George.*  The  last  named  died  in  1673,^  and  his  son  Ralph  followed 
him  to  the  grave  a  few  years  later,  the  estate  devolving  on  his  younger  son 
George,  a  minor,  who  in  1683  complained  through  his  father-in-law.  Sir 
Francis  Blake  of  Ford,  to  the  court  of  chancery  that  his  sisters,  Doroth}- 
and  Frances,  had  conspired  with  Mark  Milbank,  who  held  a  mortgage  on 
the  property,  to  defraud  him  of  his  inheritance.^  This  George  Selby  died 
very  soon  afterwards,  and  his  widow  had  to  sue  various  members  of  the  family 
in  1685  to  secure  the  annuity  of  £200  allotted  to  her  out  of  her  husband's 
estate.''  She  was  also  involved  in  other  litigation  with  regard  to  the  descent- 
of  the  main  property.     This  was  claimed  by  Rowland  Selby,  as  the  son 

1  By  his  will  dated  14  April,  1637,  Sir  William  Selby  left  all  his  northern  estates  to  his  brother  Ralph. 
Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  vi.  p.  33. 

*  It  was  probably  this  William  Selby  who  held  the  larger  half  of  Branxton  in  1663  with  a  rent  roll  of  £70. 
Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii    vol.  i.  p.  277. 

'  He  probably  only  owned  the  property  for  a  short  time  as  an  inventory  of  the  goods  of  George  Selby 
of  Branxton  was  taken  22nd  Feb.,  1664.     Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  iv.  p.  21. 

*  Bill  in  Court  of  Exchequer,  Easter,  36  Charles  II. — Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  iii.  pp.  11 2-1 13. 

'  By  his  will  dated  2nd  Feb.,  1673,  George  Selby  of  Twizell  left  his  capital  messuage  of  Moneylaws  to  his 
son  Ralph  and  his  heirs  male,  remainder  to  liis  second  son,  George,  remainder  to  his  daughters.  He  alludes 
to  his  father,  Rowland,  and  his  mother  still  living.  Proved  1673.  (Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  v.  p.  269; 
Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  Bundle  552,  No.  78).  This  will  supports  the  statement  that  the  entail  had  been 
cut.     See  below. 

'  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  Bundle  552,  No.  78. 

'  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  Bundle  183,  No.  70. 


of  Thomas  Selby  of  Bamburgh,  younger  brother  of  George  Selby  of  Cornhill, 
by  virtue  of  the  entail,  but  he  was  met  with  a  statement  that  it  had  been  cut 
by  WilHam  the  prebendary,  with  the  consent  of  Rowland  Selby  and  his  son 
George.^  The  plaintiff  was  husband  of  Frances,  one  of  the  sisters  and  co- 
heiresses of  the  last  owner  of  the  estate, ^  and  the  defendant  was  her  sister 
Dorothy,  widow  of  Thomas  Collingwood,  whom  he  accused  of  conspiring 
to  conceal  the  deed  of  entail  with  her  mother,  Elizabeth,  now  wife  of  Thomas 
Ord,  and  Eleanor,  widow  of  her  brother,  George  Selby. ^  Thus  it  would 
appear  that  Rowland  Selby  sought  to  secure  the  whole  property  in  his  own 
right  instead  of  a  moiety  thereof  in  right  of  his  wife.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
the  sisters  shared  the  inheritance,*  and  from  this  time  forward  the  name 
of  Selby  disappears  from  the  township. 

As  far  back  as  1584  there  is  mention  of  three  property  owners 
in  Branxton,^  and  the  Rate  Book  of  1663  gives  two  names,  Wilham 
Selb}',  with  a  rent  roll  of  £70,  and  James  Carr,  with  one  of  £60.^  By  the 
early  eighteenth  century  the  three  landowners  were  Edward  Haggerston 
with  seven  farmholds,  Henry  Collingwood  with  eight  and  a  quarter  farm- 
holds, and  Ralph  Davison  with  three  and  a  quarter  farmholds.  These,  in 
1712,  agreed  to  enclose  their  lands  which  were  still  intermixed  and  to  divide 
up  the  common  amongst  them.'  From  this  time  forward  the  three  properties 
can   be   distinguished.     Ralph   Davison   had  held   his  property  known   as 

'  Bill  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer,  Easter,  36  Charles  II. — Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  iii.  pp.  11 2-1 13. 

'  Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  315,  where  a  pedigree  of  this  family  will  be  found. 

'  Bill  in  Court  of  Exchequer.     Easter,  36  Charles  II. — Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  iii.  pp.  112-113. 

*  The  following  descent  of  the  property  is  given  in  manuscript  in  the  handwriting  of  Sir  Henry  Selby, 
'now  a  sergeant-at-law,'  who  died  in  1715. 

Sir  William  Selby  of  the  Mote,  in  the  parish  of  Ightham,  in  the  county  of  Kent,  knt.,  entayled  his  estate 
in  the  Countyes  of  Northumberland  and  Durham  upon  William  Selby,  second  son  of  S.  Ralph  Selby  (brother 
of  the  said  S.  William  Selby  of  Kent)  in  tayl  male,  which  said  William  Selby  after  the  death  of  S.  William  Selby, 
which  was  in  1629,  enter'd  into  all  the  estate  and  enjoyed  it  till  the  20  Feb.  165.1,  o"  which  day  he  dyed. 

Then  Ralph  Selby,  eldest  son  of  S.  Ralph  Selby,  entered  and  enjoyed  the  estate  of  Twizell  in  the  County 
of  Durham  and  all  the  lands  in  Northumberland  from  the  20  Feb.,  1654,  to  28  Sept.  1660,  on  which  day 
he  dyed. 

Next  to  Ralph  Selby,  William  Selby  a  Clerk  and  a  Son  of  the  said  William  Selby,  a  prebendary  of  Durham, 
entered  and  enjoyed  the  said  estate  of  Twizell  and  the  estate  in  Northumberland  from  the  28  Sept.,  1660, 
till  he  and  Roland  Selby,  son  of  George  Selby  of  Cornhill,  conveyed  the  said  estate  of  Twizell  by  lease  and 
release,  11  &  12  Nov.,  1672,  unto  George  Selby,  son  of  the  said  Roland,  who  enjoyed  it  to  the  day  of  his 
death  which  was  2  Feb.,  1672. 

After  his  death  Ralph  his  son  entered  and  enjoyed  the  estate  till  the  day  of  his  death,  which  was  in  Nov. 
1677.  After  Roland's  death.  George,  his  son,  who  marryed  Blake's  daughter,  enjoyed  the  estate  to  the  day 
of  hjs  death,  which  was  10  Feb.  1683. 

After  his  death,  Dorothy  and  ffrances  the  sisters  of  the  last  mentioned  George  Selby.  enjoyed  the  estate 
together  with  Captain  Roland  Selby.     (Miscellanea  Genealogica  et  Heraldica,  vol.  i.  p.  15.). 

For  pedigree  of  the  family  see  Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  315. 

'  Cat.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  14.  *  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  277. 

'  Pallinsburn  Deeds. 



East  side  at  least  since  1704/  and  it  continued  with  liis  descendants  till 
William  Davison  of  Chatton  Park  sold  it  in  1805  to  Thomas  Howey  who,  in 
1813,  resold  it  to  George  Adam  Askew,  and,  henceforth  it  became  part  of  the 
Pallinsbnrn  estate.-  The  Haggerston  portion,  which  was  the  property  of 
Sir  Carnaby  Haggerston  in  1720,^  can  be  identified  W'ith  the  Selby  inherit- 
ance on  the  analogy  of  Moneylaws.*  It  was  probably  sold  ultimately  to 
the  Collingwoods,  and  together  with  the  already  existing  Collingwood 
lands  in  the  township  formed  the  property  of  which  Mr.  John 
Collingwood  of  Cornhill  is  the  present  owner.^ 


James  Davison  of  Chatton,  who,  loth  September,  1695,  obtained  a  lease  of  lands  in 
Chatton  Parle  on  the  surrender  of  a  lease  granted  to  Gilbert  Swinhoe  (</)  ;  dead  before 
l6th  November,  1704  (c)  ;  [buried  13th  September,  1698  (_/>)]. 

Ralph  Davison  of  Branxton  and  of  Chatton,  a  son  and  heir, 
mortgaged  a  tenement  in  Wooler,  l6th  November, 
1704  (c) ;  party  to  division  of  Branxton,  April,  1712  («)  ; 
voted  at  the  election  of  knights  of  the  shire  in  171$, 
described  as  the  elder,  1719  ;  buried  6th  August,  1729  {6). 

Anne  ,  buried 

14th      November, 

John  Davison  of  Chatton,  who  with 
his  father  took  a  Iea?c  of  lands  1st 
December,  1697,  and  renewed  the 
same  15th  January,  1718,  and 
again  2nd  .^pril,  1730  (</).     4^ 

Ralph  Davison  of  Branxton  and  of  Chatton  Park,  of  full  age,  1716  (c)  ;  party  to  division  of  =  Christian    Atkinson,     mar 

Branxton,  April,  1712  (c)  ;  took  a  lease  of  lands  in  Chatton,  I2th  December,  1716,  and  re- 
newed the  same  25th  October,  1737  Qd)  ;  mortgaged  his  lands  in  Branxton,  30th  October, 
1719  (<:)•  Voted  at  the  election  of  knights  of  the  shire  in  1722  and  1748  ;  buried  23rd 
October,  1753  (i)  ;  administration  of  personal  estate,  l6th  June,  1754  (c)- 

riage  settlement,  Decem- 
ber, 1714  {*:)  ;  perhaps 
second  wife  ;  buried  29th 
April,  1727  (6). 

James  Davison  of  Branxton  and  of  Chatton, 

baptised  1st  .May,  1716  {a)  ;  voted  at  the 
election  of  knights  of  the  shire  in  1748  ; 
took  a  lease  of  lands  in  Chatton,  igth 
September,  1749  (</) ;  buried  2nd  October, 
1765  («)  ;    will  dated  31st  May,  1765. 

dau.  of  Sarah 
Reavely  ;  mar. 
13  Aug.,  1748, 
at  St.Nichulas, 


13th  Aug., 
171 7   («')• 

28th  April, 
1724  00- 

6th  June, 

1726  c«). 

I  I 

Tsabell,  bapt.  3rd  May, 
1 7 19  (rt). 

Anne,  baptised  3rd  Feb., 
I720;'l  (a)  ;  mar.  lOth 
July,  1743,  Thomas 
Bell  of  Easington 
Grange  (a). 

John    Davi-  William    Davison  of  Branxton   and  of=:Jane 

son,  bapt.  Chatton, 'bapt.  27th  Dec,   1753  (a);        Stewart 

4th  Aug.,  residuary  legatee  of  his  father's  will  ; 

1750  (a)  ;  renewed  his  lease  of  lands  in  Chatton 

buried  8th  Sept.,  1778  ;  voted  at  election  of 

24  March,  knights  of  the  shire  in  1774  ;  a  lieut. 

■751  (")•  '"  '77^  ;  ■'  captain  in  1779  ;  a  major, 
1799,  of  Northumberland  Militia. 

(a)  Chatton  Register.           (fi)    Wooler  Register. 

dau.    of 




James  Davison, 
baptised  30th 
January,  1755 
(a)  ;  buried 
17th         May, 

1755  W- 

I    I 

(<r)  Abstract  <f  Title,  Rev. 

(</)  Duke  of  Northumberland' s  MS  S.      («)  Pallimburn   Deeds. 

Sarah,  bapt.  19th  June,  1749  («)  ;  mar. 
John  Close  of  Chatton,  a  pilot,  before 
1781  (a)  ;  and  died  at  Chatton,  13th 
Nov.,  1 8 10  (a).  In  the  deeds  of 
1805  called  Catherine  (c). 

Christian,  baptised  25th  January, 
1752  (a)  ;  buried  2nd  February, 
1772  (ri). 

John  Hodgson's  Collections. 

1  Hodgson  MSS.  Branxton  Parish,  pp.  8-9. 

=  Pallinshurn  Deeds.     For  the  later  history  of  this  property  see  pages  439-440. 

'  Register  of  lioman  Catholics'  Estates,  p.  76.  *  See  page  89. 

'  The  deeds  of  Mr.  Collingwood's  property  have  not  been  produced  so  that  this  later  descent  must  remain 
a  mere  conjecture.  In  1838  (Christopher  Fenwick  possessed  an  estate  in  the  chapelry  of  Bran.xton  which  he 
had  bought  from  Henry  Collingwood  of  Lilburn  Tower  (Deposition  of  M.  T.  Johnston,  Dec,  1838 — Ford 
Tithe  Case,  p.  30),  which  suggests  that  the  present  CoUingwood  title  to  at  least  a  portion  of  the  Branxton 
property  is  of  no  ancient  date. 



The  parish  of  Kirknewton  is  one  of  the  largest  in  the  county  and 
contains  no  less  than  fifteen  townships  with  a  total  population  in  191 1  of 
1,050  persons.^  To  the  west  lie  the  highlands  which  culminate  in  Cheviot, 
while  the  eastern  townships  bask  in  the  plain  of  Milfield. 

Ecclesiastical  History. — The  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale  was 
among  those  possessions  given  by  Walter  Espec  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham,^ 
though  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  Walter  Corbett  tried  to  exercise  the  right 
of  presentation,^  and  later  the  abbot  of  Kelso  seems  to  have  put  in  a  claim, 
as  there  was  litigation  over  it  between  the  two  monasteries.*  Durham 
monastery  seems  also  to  have  been  involved,  as  the  prior  of  that 
house  in  1253  confirmed  a  confirmation  of  the  church  to  Kirkham 
by  Walter  Kirkham,  bishop  of  Durham.'^  Some  time  after  the  appropriation 
a  vicarage  was  ordained  in  Newton,^  and  the  revenues  allotted  to  it  were 
the  tithes  of  sheaves  and  hay  of  Kirknewton  and  Hethpool,  the  tithes  of  hay 
in  the  vills  of  West  Newton,  Akeld,  Yeavering,  Coupland  and  Lanton, 
tithes  of  wool  and  lambs  in  Kirknewton,  and  the  tofts,  crofts  and  cottages 
with  their  rents  belonging  to  the  church  in  that  vill,  all  oblations  of  the  said 
church  and  its  chapels  on  all  principal  and  other  feast  days  and  Sundays 
whether  in  the  form  of  pain  hcni  or  otherwise,  mortuary  fees  in  whatsoever 
form  received,  dues  of  wax  for  the  church  candles,  tithes  of  cheese,  butter, 
cow's  milk,  eggs,  calves,  chickens,  small  pigs,  geese,  hens,  pannage  and 
herbage,  goats,  honey,  gardens,  flax,  hemp,  and  grist,  all  lesser  tithes  includ- 
ing wax,  whether  obligatory  or  free-will  offerings,  and  all  other  contributions 
either  to  the  parish  church  or  to  its  chapels.     The  vicar  was  to  bear  the 

'  Census  of  191 1. 

-  Rievaiilx  Chartularv,  pp.  161,  244-245  ;  MonasHcon,  vol.  vi.  pp.  20S-209.  The  gift  was  confirmed  by 
Henry  I.  and  again  by  Edward  IIL  in  1336.     Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  pp.  360-361. 

'  Kirkham  Carlularv,  fol.  83.  The  date  is  fi.xed  by  the  mention  of  'curia  domini  regis  H."  and  the 
fact  that  a  witness  at  the  trial  was  Hugh  Murdoch  who  witnessed  a  deed  of  Henry  II.  (Rievaiilx  Chartularv. 
p.  151)  and  was  rector  of  Bamburgh  circa  1171-1185.       {N.C.H.  vol.  i.  pp.  75,  94). 

*  1199-1208.  Curia  Regis  Rolls,  Nos.  16  and  20 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxi.  p.  16,  li;  Rot.  Curia 
Regis,  vol.  ii.  p.  256;   Coram  Reg^  Roll,  10  John,  No.  39,  mm.  9,  lodo. — IJain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  75. 

'>  Hunter  MS.  3,  p.  245  ;  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  83;  Durham  Treasury  Document — Hodgson,  pt.  iii. 
vol.  ii.  pp.   150-151. 

"  This  cannot  have  been  before  1153  when  the  incumbent  was  rector.     See  page  124. 


expense  of  synodal  dues  and  the  archdeacon's  procurations  and  all  the 
other  ordinary  expenses  of  the  church,  though  the  monastery  undertook 
to  contribute  half  a  mark  annually  towards  these  by  way  of  composition 
for  all  tithes  due  from  its  property  in  the  parish.  When  repairs  to  the  church 
and  chancel  were  necessary,  the  vicar  and  the  monks  were  each  to  pay  their 
share. ^  The  value  of  the  vicarage  thus  defined  was  estimated  at  55  marks, - 
but  later  valuations  did  not  come  up  to  this.  Pope  Nicholas's  Taxation  of 
1291  gives  the  value  of  the  rectory  as  £90  and  that  of  the  vicarage  as  £20.^ 
Towards  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  benefice  became  even  less 
valuable,  thanks  to  Scottish  ravages,  and  was  quite  beyond  paying  its  quota 
to  a  clerical  subsidy  of  1380  and  also  to  the  expenses  of  the  English  repre- 
sentatives at  the  council  of  Pisa  in  1409,  though  in  each  case  a  small  con- 
tribution was  made.*  So  bad  was  the  situation  in  1436  that  the  bishop 
gave  the  vicar  licence  to  say  Mass  and  the  other  offices  outside  the  church 
in  any  place  in  the  parish  which  was  safe  and  suitable  so  long  as  the  hostilities 
of  the  Scots  continued,  provided  that  provision  was  made  for  giving  baptism 
to  children,  extreme  unction  to  the  dying  and  sepulture  to  the  dead,  and 
that  the  sacraments  were  celebrated  in  the  church  whenever  that 
were  possible.^  Possibly  the  situation  had  improved  and  the  church  was 
again  a  safe  place  when  in  1452  John  Langton,  citizen  and  sadler  of  London, 
bequeathed  a  banner  with  a  copper  cross,  gilt,  valued  at  20s.  to  the  church 
where  he  had  probably  been  baptized.^  In  1522  the  prior  and  convent  of 
Kirkham  granted  the  next  presentation  to  John  Wallas  of  Wooler,  William 
Wallas,  Henry  Wallas  of  the  same  and  their  assigns. '^ 

The  greater  tithes  were  mostly  leased  to  private  persons,  those  of  Akeld, 
Lanton,  and  Shotton  being  thus  held  by  Odinel  Selby  at  the  time  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  monasteries,^  and  for  a  time  thereafter  the  crown  followed 
the  same  policy,  receiving  in  all  £13  for  the  farm  of  'all  tithes  of  the  rectory 

1  The  archdeacon  of  Northumberland  at  a  later  date  ordered  that  the  vicar  should  be  responsible  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  books  and  ornaments  of  the  church.     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  8j, 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  i6.     Cf.  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  152. 

'  Taxatio  Eccles.  Angl. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  351.      This  again  occurs  in  1306  (Reg.  Palat.  Dunclin, 
vol.  iii.  p.  97)  and  in  1340  (Nonarum  Inqiiisitiones — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  pp.  xxxviu.-xxxix. 

*  Accounts  of  Taxation — Ford  Tithe  Case,  pp.  214-215,  217. 

'  Durham  Ecclesiastical  Proceedings,  p.  25. 

°  North  Country  Wills,  vol.  i.  p.  255.     He  was  probably  a  native  of  Lanton  by  his  name  and  he  mentions 
Akeld  in  his  will. 

'  May  17th,  1522.     Hunter  MS.  6,  p.  93;   Randal  MS.  4,  p.  195. 

'  Augmentation  Office,  Conventual  Leases,  York.  Bundle  426. 


with  all  glebe  lands,  meadows  and  pastures  to  the  same  rectory  belonging. '^ 
Odinel  Selby  still  held  the  tithes  of  Akeld,  Lanton  and  Shotton  at  a  rent  of 
60s.,  20s.,  and  los.  respectively,  while  other  lessees  were  Gerard  Selby,  Sir 
Cuthbert  Ogle,  Robert  Collingwood,  Thomas  Spencer,  Katherine  Colling- 
wood,  John  Cook  and  Sir  Robert  EUerker.  William  Strother  held  a  lease 
of  West  Newton  tithes,  but  no  mention  is  made  of  those  of  Kirknewton 
township. 2  After  having  been  in  the  hands  of  the  crown  for  some  years, 
the  rectory  and  advowson  with  all  appurtenances  including  tithes  in  Newton, 
Shotton,  Paston,  Kilham,  Crookhouse,  West  Newton,  Coupland,  Lanton, 
Yeavering,  Milfield,  Akeld  and  Howtel  were  given  to  William  Strother  in 
1553.  This,  together  with  certain  lands  in  Kilham,  was  valued  at  £ig 
annually  and  was  to  be  held  in  free  socage.^  The  tithes  of  Cheviot,  Colds- 
mouth  and  Hethpool  are  not  included  in  this  gift,  and  so  far  as  Hethpool  is 
concerned  we  know  that  they  had  been  claimed  by  Melrose  abbey,  which  in 
1223  had  agreed  to  pay  50s.  and  2od.  annually  for  them  to  the  priory  of 

The  rectory  remained  with  the  Strother  family  down  to  the  extinction 
of  the  line.  It  was  part  of  the  estate  of  William  Strother  in  1579,^  ^^^  ^^ 
1631  John  Strother  died  seised  of  the  rectory  of  East  Newton  with  the  glebe 
lands  in  East  and  West  Newton  and  the  tithes  of  East  and  West  Newton, 
Lanton,  Howtel,  Akeld  and  Milfield,  held  of  the  king  as  of  his  manor  of  East 
Greenwich  by  fealty  only  and  not  in  chief  nor  by  military  service.  Included 
also  in  the  rectory  was  Canno  Mill,  held  for  life  by  John's  brother  Lancelot.^ 
From  this  it  is  obvious  that  the  lands  once  held  by  Kirkham  priory  in  East 
and  West  Newton  had  been  included  in  the  gift  of  the  rectory,  the  full 
value  of  which  at  this  time  is  not  given,  but  the  vicarage  had  considerably 
depreciated  in  value  during  the  sixteenth  century,  being  valued  at  £4  6s.  8d. 
in  the  time  of  Elizabeth.'^  By  1637  however  it  had  again  appreciated, 
consisting  then  of  a  close  or  croft  of  arable  land  containing  three  acres  on  the 

*  Ministers'  Accounts,  34  Hen.  VIIL — Caley  MS.  Cf.  Ministers'  Accounts,  31  Hen.  VIH. — Monasticon, 
vol.  vi.  pt.  i.  p.  210. 

^  Ministers'  Accounts,  31  Hen.  VIH. — Caley  MS. 

'  Augmentation  Office,  Particulars  for  Grants,  No.  1985  ;     Originalia,  7  Edw.  VI.  pt.  5,  No.  18  ;  Caley  MS. 

*  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  pp.  270-271  ;  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  87. 

*  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  P-  41. 

^  Inq.  p.m. — Laing  Charters,  pp.  499-500.  In  1657  William  Strother  had  a  case  against  Walter  Rutherford, 
Thomas  Revelcy  and  Thomas  Burrell  concerning  the  rectory  and  tithes  of  Kirknewton.  Special  Coni- 
mi'isions  of  the  Exchequer — Dep.  Keeper's  Rep.  No.  40,  App.  i.  p.  51. 

'  Values  and  Patrons — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  xlvii.  The  figure  was  £3  6s.  8d.  according  to  Barnes 
Visitations,  6yc.,  p.  10. 


east  side  of  the  churcli  lane  '  with  one  old  dwelling  house  and  a  new  parlour, 
barne,  stable,  byre  and  baking  house,  lately  built  by  the  present  incum- 
bent, being  situate  on  the  south  forepart  of  the  said  croft.'  With  this  went 
the  right  of  pasture  in  all  herbage  ground  belonging  to  the  demesne  of  East 
Newton  for  six  cows  and  their  calves,  one  bull,  three  score  ewes  and  their 
lambs  and  three  horses  or  mares,  which  were  to  run  summer  and  winter  with 
the  lord's  animals  and  to  be  tended  by  the  herds  of  the  lord's  tenants.  To 
this  was  added  the  right  to  tithes  of  hemp,  pigs,  hens  and  other  poultry  in  East 
Newton,  of  hay  in  Kilham,  Thornton,  Thompson's  Walls,  Heddon  and 
Coldsmouth,  and  of  the  lands  of  the  demesne  of  Crookhouse,  which  was  said 
by  some  strange  error  to  be  in  the  parish  of  Eord,  all  such  tithes  being  valued 
at  13s  4d.  yearly.  Also  included  were  tithes  of  little  pigs,  hens  and  other 
poultry  '  in  Pauston  of  the  handes  of  the  Lairdes  or  Farmers  of  the  Demesne 
Lands  in  Pauston  yearly  at  Easter  the  sum  of  6s.  8d.,'  of  hay  and  other 
produce  'in  the  two  shottens,'  valued  at  2S.,  of  hay  in  Yeavering  and  in  the 
demesne  of  Milfield  worth  6s.  8d.  and  4s.  respectively  and  of  hay  in  Lanton. 
All  these  tithes  were  commuted,  others,  of  which  no  details  are  given,  were 
paid  in  kind,  but  over  and  above  them  there  were  various  minor  tolls,  such 
as  id.  for  every  5  ewes,  fees  for  marriage  and  burial,  the  last  costing  gd., 
and  if  in  the  chancel  6s.  8d.  save  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  lord's  family. 
The  sum  total  of  vicarial  tithes  was  estimated  to  be  £30  a  year,^  and,  as  this 
did  not  include  the  lands  of  the  vicarage,  probably  the  estimate  of  £40  made 
in  the  seventeenth  century^  may  be  taken  as  the  value  of  the  vicarage  at 
that  time.  By  1650  it  had  still  more  appreciated,  for  according  to  the 
ecclesiastical  inquests  of  that  year  it  was  '  of  the  yearly  value  of  three  score 
pounds,  exclusive  of  tithes  to  the  value  of  £16  and  a  yearly  £s  due  from,  but 
not  always  paid  by,  Lord  Grey  of  Wark  and  William  Burrell  of  Howtel.^ 

The  cure  was  evidently  considered  an  advantageous  one,  if  we  are  to 
judge  by  the  competition  for  it  when  a  vacancy  was  imminent  in  1685.* 
Over  a  century  later  Archdeacon  Singleton  in  his  visitation  of  1828  found 
a  similar  competition  for  it,  the  details  of  which  reveal  the  attitude  towards 
ecclesiastical  patronage  prevalent  at  that  period.  The  vicarage  was  then 
in  the  gift  of  John  Davidson  of  Otterburn,   '  I  should  have  said  disposal 

•  Terrier  in  Durham  Registry — Caley  MS. 

'  Barnes  Visitalions,  &■€.,  p.  lo,  a  note  appended  in  a  seventeenth  century  hand. 
'  Ecclesiastical  Inquests,  1650 — Arch.  Ael.  O.S.  vol.  iii.  pp.  5-6. 

*  Letter  of  Alexander  Davidson — Raine,  North  Durham,  pp.  334-335. 


rather  than  gift,'  he  wrote,  'for  I  beheve  the  family  of  Mr.  Robinson,  the 
present  incumbent,  made  a  purchase  of  it  from  the  trustees  of  Mr.  Davidson, 
when  that  gentleman  was  a  minor.  The  last  incumbent  was  Dr.  Thomas, 
vicar  of  Chillingham,  and  whatever  his  merits  may  have  been,  he  was 
indebted  for  his  preferment  to  his  age.  The  excellent  Mr.  Bouchier,  the 
former  vicar,  died  so  unexpectedly  that  the  trustees  had  made  no  arrange- 
ments for  appointing  a  successor,  and  were  obliged  to  supply  the  vacancy 
with  one  whose  numbered  years  would  give  the  greatest  reason  to  calculate 

on  an  early  presentation However  it  is  right  in  his  case  to  say  that 

during  Mr.  Thomas's  incumbency,  the  curacy  was  respectably  filled  by 
Mr.  Wood.  I  have  heard  that  the  original  intention  of  the  trustees  was  to 
nominate  Mr.  Witton  of  Rennington,  a  man  at  that  time  in  extreme  old  age, 
but  it  was  found  utterly  impossible  to  convey  him  to  the  bishop  for  insti- 
tution, and  impossible  that  he  could  ever  read  himself  in.'^ 

The  advowson  had  been  sold  in  1762  by  John  Strother  Kerr  at  the  same 
time  as  he  was  disposing  of  the  other  Strother  property  in  Kirknewton.  It 
was  bought  by  William  Lawes  of  Newcastle,  and  later  of  Ridley  Hall.  In 
1795  it  was  leased  for  99  years  to  John  Davidson  of  Newcastle,  who  ultimately 
bought  it  and  whose  executors  sold  it  to  the  Marquis  of  Bute  in  1848.  It  was 
almost  immediately  resold  to  Alexander  Thompson,  and  thus  became  once 
more  connected  with  a  landowner  in  the  township.  In  1878,  however,  he 
sold  the  advowson  to  Morris  Piddocke  of  Stanton  Manor,  near  Burton-on- 
Trent,2  and  the  vicarage  is  now  in  the  gift  of  his  son,  the  present  incumbent, 
its  annual  value  being  £480  gross  and  £357  net  and  a  house. 

The  Church. — The  church  of  St.  Gregory^  consists  of  chancel,  nave 
with  north  aisle  of  four  bays  and  with  a  small  chapel  upon  the  south  side, 
south  porch,  and  west  tower.  The  chancel,  south  chapel,  and  the  lower 
portions  of  the  pillars  of  the  nave  arcade  are  all  that  remains  of  the 
medieval  building.  The  plan  suggests  an  aisleless  cruciform  church,  to 
which  a  north  aisle  was  added  late  in  the  twelfth  or  early  in  the  thirteenth 
century.  In  the  course  of  excavations  made  by  Mr.  F.  R.  Wilson  of 
Alnwick  in  i860,  it  was  discovered  that  the  chancel,  which  now  measures 

1  Archdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255.  According  to  the  register 
Mr.  Anthony  Thomas  officiated  once  in  i8ig.  His  curates  were  William  Barker,  1818-1820,  and  John 
Ayton  Wood,  1820-1828.     Kirknewton  Register. 

-  Deeds  of  the  Rev.  M.  M.  Piddocke,  Kirknewton. 

'  The  earliest  notice  of  the  dedication  is  in  a  document  of  1223.     Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  p.  270. 

Vol.   X[.  16 



about  25  feet  by  15  feet,  had  originally  extended  a  bay  further  to  the  east; 
and  was  therefore  unusually  long  in  proportion  to  the  rest  of  the  church. 
The  addition  of  the  aisle  probably  absorbed  a  northern  transeptal  chapel, 
corresponding  to  that  on  the  south.  The  early  arrangement  of  the  church 
has  been  much  obscured  by  alterations,  the  actual  date  of  which  is  uncertain. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that,  owing  to  the  incursions  of  the  Scots,  the  building 
was  occasionally  disused  and  may  have  become  ruinous.     In  1436,  at  any 

rate,  the  vicar  was  given 
i  licence  to  say  mass  in  any 
safe  and  decent  place  with- 
in the  parish,  but  outside 
the  church,  so  long  as  the 
hostility  of  the  Scots  then 
existing  should  continue.^ 
It  was  probably  during 
this  period  or  during  the 
succeeding  century,  that 
the  old  chancel  was 
destroyed  and  the  present 
shorter  chancel  made  in 
its  stead.  The  north  and 
south  walls  are  upon  the 
old  foundations,  but  are 
extremely  low ;  and  the 
chancel  is  covered  with  a 
pointed  barrel-vault,  like 
that  of  the  ground-floor  of 
a  pele-tower,  evidently  for 
security  against  fire.  It  is 
entered  from  the  nave  by  a 
low  and  narrow  segmental  arch.  These  details  have  given  rise  to  the  theory 
that  the  chancel,  thus  altered,  was  intended  to  be  used  as  a  storehouse. 
The  south  chapel,  or  Burrell  vault  as  it  is  now  called, ^  also  has  a  barrel- 

'  See  p.  n8. 

^  Thomas  Burrell  of  Milfield  by  his  will  dated  20th  May,  1620,  directs  that  he  be  buried  in  Kirknewton 
church.  (Raine,  Tcstanienla,  vol.  ii.  p.  265.)  Ralph  Burrell  of  Milfield  by  his  will  i8th  March,  165(5,  directs 
that  he  be  buried  'in  the  accustomed  place  in  Kirknewton  church  {Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  47).  William  Burrell  of 
Howtell  by  will  dated  nth  April,  1719,  directs  that  he  be  buried  in  the  'South  Porch  of  Kirknewton  Church  ' 
{Ibid.  vol.  V.  p.  5).  The  'porch'  seems  to  have  belonged  to  the  Howtel  property,  as  in  1828  Archdeacon 
Singleton's  Visitation  records  that  it  belonged  '  to  Mr.  Davison  of  Swarland  for  Howtel,'  and  he  had  bought  it 
from  the  Burrells.     Archdeacon  Thomas  Sharpe  caused  it  to  be  repaired  by  '  Mr.  Burrell  of  Howtel '  in  1727. 

Fig.  6. — Kirknewton  Church.      The  Chancel. 



vault,  which,  as  was  discovered  in  i860,  was  composed  in  part  of  arch- 
stones  taken  from  the  nave  arcade,  which  therefore  must  have  been  destroyed 
for  this  purpose,  together  with  the  north  aisle.     The  chapel,  however,  which 
formed  the  east  part  of  this  aisle,  and  was  known  as  the  Coup  land  chapel, 
was   left  standing   and   may    have    been  similarly  vaulted;     it   was  still 
standing  in  1796,  and  its  foundations  were  discovered  in  i860.    The  church 
thus  recovered  its  early  cruciform  plan,  with  a  changed  elevation,  at  any 
rate  as  regarded  the  chancel  and  chapels.      In  1669  the  nave  stood  in  need 
of  rebuilding  ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  a  total  reconstruction 
followed,  and  that  the  fabric  was  not  in  such  a  state  that  it  had  fallen  into 
disuse    is    shown    by 
the  fact  that  the  font 
bears  the    date  1663. 
The  Coupland  chapel 
shortly    before    1796, 
was  presented  to  the 
churchwardens  by  Dr. 
Ogle,  the  then  owner 
of  Coupland  Castle,  to 
be  used  as  a  vestry; 
but     these     worthies 
considered     it     more 
economical  to  pay  los. 
to  have  it  removed  and 
the  north  wall  built  up. 

Fig.  7. — The  Adoration  of  the  Magi. 

In  1856,  when  the  Rev.  P.  G.  McDouall  became 
vicar,  the  whole  church  was  in  a  very  dilapidated  state.  Plans  were  drawn 
up  by  Mr.  John  Dobson  for  a  complete  restoration,  and  an  appeal  for  £1,600 
was  issued.  The  restoration  scheme  was  not  carried  out  in  its  entirety 
but  the  whole  nave  was  pulled  down  and  rebuilt,  and  at  a  later  date  a  tower 
was  added  at  the  west  end.^  It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  account 
that  the  nave  thus  destroyed  was  substantially  a  medieval  building,  the 
north  wall  of  which  had  been  reconstructed  in  the  later  part  of  the  middle 
ages,  and  to  which  some  repairs  may  have  been  made  in  the  seventeenth 

•  The  foregoing  account  is  based  on  the  matter  in  Wilson,  Churches  of  Lindisfarne,  pp.  72-73,  and  on  a 
MS.  account  of  the  restoration  of  the  Kev.  P.  G.  McDouall,  the  vicar,  together  with  the  appeal,  with  plans 
of  the  existing  church  and  the  proposed  restorations,  formerly  in  the  possession  of  the  late  \  er>^  Kev. 
Monsignor  Matthew  CuUey  of  Coupland  Castle,  who  kindly  put  them  at  my  disposal. 


One  of  the  most  interesting  details  of  this  church  is  a  piece  of  rough 
sculpture  built  into  the  wall  behind  the  pulpit,  said  to  have  been  found 
encased  in  some  other  wall  when  the  nave  was  rebuilt.  It  represents 
the  Adoration  of  the  Magi  and  is  executed  in  a  rude  but  vigorous  style. 
Our  Lady  and  the  child  Christ  are  shown  seated  in  a  sort  of  trough  which 
on  its  right  side  has  a  T-shaped  branch  rising  from  it  as  though  meant  to  be 
used  for  tying  up  cattle.  Both  have  their  arms  raised,  the  hand  of  our  Lady 
seeming  to  hold  something  which  is  not  distinguishable.  The  Magi  are 
depicted  as  almost  running  towards  them,  each  holding  his  gift  aloft  in  his 
left  hand  and  supporting  his  left  elbow  with  his  right  hand.  They  seem 
to  be  attired  in  kilts  and  have  nothing  on  their  feet.  In  addition  to  this 
ancient  relic  a  small  sepulchral  cross  and  the  lower  part  of  another  are  built 
into  the  tower.  In  the  centre  of  the  chancel  floor  there  is  a  sixteenth  century 
slab  with  an  inscription  unreadable  save  for  the  word  'mercie.'  This  may 
well  mark  the  grave  of  a  Strother,  for  the  family  seem  to  have  had  the 
privilege  of  burial  in  the  chancel. ^ 

The  registers  originally  dated  from  1670,  but  they  were  seriously  dam- 
aged by  fire  in  1789  in  the  clerk's  house,  where  they  were  then  kept.  These 
early  registers  are  now  practically  undecipherable,  and  thus  the  usable  series 
now  begins  in  1790.     The  following  church  plate  belongs  to  the  parish. 

Chalice,  silver  spun  and  lecten,  7  in.  high  and  4  in.  in  diameter  at  the  top  and  3  in.  at  the  base. 

On  the  underside  of  the  base  is  the  inscription  "  The  gift  of  Amor  0.\ley." 
Patten,  plain  silver,  5 J  in.  in  diameter  and  i/,  in.  high. 
Flagon,  silver,  presented  by  the  late  Mr.  George  Grey,  of  Milfield. 


Circa  1153 — -1197.  Stephen.  Alluded  to  as  parson  of  the  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale  in  a  document 
which  alludes  to  Hugh,  bishop  of  Durham  (Hugh  Puiset,  1153-1197),  and  has  reference 
to  a  dispute  between  Stephen  and  the  priory  of  Kirkham  with  regard  to  the  rights 
of  the  former's  church  of  Newton.- 


1285,  1290.  Hugh  of  St.  Oswald.     Vicar  of  the  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  sues  for  robbery  in 

1285.'      Hugh,  vicar  of  the  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  mentioned  as  suing  for 
trespass  in  1290.'' 

'  Will  of  John  Strother,  1592,  'to  be  buried  in  the  chancel  of  Newton  '  (Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  125). 
Will  of  Thomas  Strother  of  Chatton,  1603,  has  a  similar  instruction  (Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  105).  Will  of  William 
Strother  of  I'owberry,  1697,  'to  be  buried  in  my  burial  place  of  Kirknewton '  [Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  199). 

'  Dodsworth  MS.  vol.  vii.  fol.  210. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  60,  m.  2odo — -Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  73-74. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  123,  m.  7 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  277. 


1293,  1 30 1.        Peter  Wetewang.      Vicar  of  the  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale  sues  David  Coupland 
1293,1  acknowledges  a  debt  1301.^ 
1316.  Philip.     Vicar  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  appointed  on  an  inquiry  into  the  vicarage  of 

Edlingham,  1316.' 
1338, 1340 — 13.^4.  John  Grey.       Receives  John  of  Norham  as  curator,  and  letters  diraissory  for  the  latter 
for  minor  and  all  Holy  Orders,  1338.'  John  of  Shirbourn,  chaplain,  appointed  curator 
of  John,  vicar  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  owing  to  the  latter's  age  and  infirmities.' 
1344 —  William  Wartre.     Instituted   7th  September,   1344,   to  the  vicarage  of  the  parochial 

church  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  vacant  by  the  death  of  John  Grey,  by  presentation 
of    the  prior  and  convent  of   Kirkham."      Philip   of    Kilnese   in   possession   of   the 
vicarage  wrongfully  and  to  be  ejected,  2nd  and   nth  May,   1344-' 
— 1350.        Robert  of  Yarm.       Vicarage  of  Newton  in  Glendale  void  by  his  death  in  Rome  in 
the  jubilee  year,  i.e.  1350.' 

1358.  John  of  Wyrksall.     Mentioned  as  vicar  of  the  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  November 

loth,  1358.' 

1359.  Robert   Heppe.      Priest  of  the  diocese  of  Carlisle,   by  the   good  offices  of  Raynald, 

cardinal  of   St.  Adrian,  provided  to    the  vicarage  of  Newton  in  Glendale,   void  by 
the  death  of  Robert  Jarnin  (sic)  at  Rome."     Was  probably  never  instituted. 
1363-  John  of  Barnard  Castle."     In  1363  petitioned  the  pope  that  whereas  he  and  John 

Winkeshale  had  resigned  respectively  the  canonry  and  prebend  of  Bires  in  Auckland 
and  the  vicarage  of  Newton  in  Glendale  in  order  to  exchange  them,  and  whereas  he 
had  been  presented  by  the  patron  of  the  said  vicarage  and  had  been  instituted  to  it 
by  the  ordinary,  and  whereas  he  doubted  whether  the  said  vicarage  on  its  voidance 
by  the  death  of  Robert  Jaris  (sic)  at  Rome  in  the  jubilee  year,  was  reserved  to  the 
pope,  he  may  be  confirmed  in  the  vicarage.'-      Papal  confirmation  secured  that  same 
— 1364.         WiLLiA.M  OF  Cressop.     Resigned  1364." 
1364 — 1366.        William  of  Hayton.     Resigned  1366." 
— 1370.         Richard  of  Whittons.     Resigned  1370." 
1370,  1380 —  Thomas    Ingelby.      Succeeded  Whittons."     Mentioned    in    a   deed    1375.'^     Vicar  of 

Newton  in   1 380-1 381.'* 
1387.  Sir  Robert  Bugthrop.     'Chaplain  of  the  parish  church  of  Newton  in  Glengell' occurs 

September  29th,  1387." 
1425 — 1427.        John  Gray.     Vicar  of  Newton,  mentioned  13th  August,   1425."     Commission  to  carry- 
out   exchange   of  livings  between  John   Gray,   vicar  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  and 
Thomas  Whittingham,  vicar  of  Stannington." 
1427 — 1436.         Thomas  Wihttingham.     Perpetual  vicar  of  the  parish  church  of  Newton  in  Glendale, 
given  licence  to  say  Mass  outside  the  parish  church  in  1436.^° 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I — Duke's  r)-a«scn^<s,  vol.  xviii.  p.  515.         -  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1296-1302,  p.  495. 

^  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelni.  vol.  ii.  p.  820.  ^  Reg.  Palat.  Dtinelm.,  vol.  iii.  p.  216. 

'  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm.  vol.  iii.  pp.  292-293.  *  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelnt.  vol.  iii.  p.  473. 

'  Richard  of  Bury's  Register,  pp.  59-60,  61-62.  "  Cal.  of  Papal  Petitions,  vol.  i.  p.  414. 

•  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  117-118.  '°  Cal.  of  Papal  Petitions,  vol.  i.  pp.  313,  347. 

"  Randal  places  this  incumbent  after  William  of   Hayton,  on  whose  resignation  in  1366  he  is  said  to 
have  been  appointed. 

"  Cal.  of  Papal  Petitions,  vol.  i.  p.  414.  "  Cal.  of  Papal  Letters,  vol.  iv.  p.  33. 

"  Randal,  State  of  the  Churches,  p.  26. 

"  Evidences  of  Strother  Pedigrees — Hodgson,  pt.  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  266. 

"  Account  Roll  of  Archdeacon  of  Northumberland — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  215. 

"  Laing  Charters,  p.  21.  »«  Laing  Charters,  p.  27.  "  Langley  Register,  fol.  294. 

*»  Durham  Ecclesiastical  Proceedings,  p.  25. 


1^88 — ,  1492.  John  Grey.  Appointed  1488.'  John  Grey,  chaplain,  vicar  of  Newton,  witnesses 
a  Fowbery  Charter  26th   June,    1492.' 

1545 — 1554.         Robert  Bullock.     Collated  9th  March,  1545.     Died  1554. • 

1554 — 1578.         John  Hall.     Collated  22nd  May,  1554.     Resigned  1578.' 

1578.  The  benctice    vacant.       In  January,  1578,  the  curate,  James  Austwicke,  did  not  appear 

at  the  chancellor's  visitation  at  Alnwick  and  was  therefore  excommunicated.'  In 
the  following  July  the  benefice  being  still  vacant  Randall  Dodd  was  the  curate  and 
failed  to  perform  his  task  at  the  chancellor's  visitation,  and  was  respited  till  the 
Michaelmas  synod.* 

1578 — 1580.         Thomas  Clarke.     The  vicarage  collated  to  him  17th  May,  1578.     Resigned  1580.^ 

1580 —  Charles  Presbv.     The  vicarage  collated  to  him  6th  January,  1580.     Presented  by  the 

bishop  of  Durham  owing  to  lapse.^ 

1604 — 1O05.         Christopher  Pearson.      Vicar  in  1604/5." 

1614 —  Emmanuel  Trotter.      B.A.,    of   Trinity   College,    Cambridge.      Instituted   29th   May, 

— 1669.  Amor  Oxley.      M.A.  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge.      Minister  of  Kirknewton,  1650.' 

In  1663  it  was  reported  'the  curate  thereof  {i.e.  Kirknewton)  is  schismaticall.'* 
This  was  probably  not  Oxley  as  he  was  a  royalist  and  was  reappointed  to 
Kirknewton  in  1665.  He  died  still  vicar  August,  i66g.  His  will  with  biographical 
notes  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Hodgson  is  in  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xxii.  pp.  279-278. 

1669 — ,  1675.  George  Ogle.  M.A.  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge.  Instituted  gth  September,  i669.« 
In  a  list  of  Northumberland  incumbents  in  1671.'     Vicar  of  Kirknewton,  1675.'" 

1681 — 1732.  JohnWerge.  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford.  B. A.  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford.  Pre- 
sented 1681."  Instituted  3rd  August,  1681.'^  Alluded  to  as  vicar  of  Kirknewton  and  a 
candidate  for  the  vicarage  of  Wooler,  then  vacant,  in  January,  1685.12  Vicar  for  52 
years.  Died  February  4th,  1732,  in  his  eightieth  year.  His  wife,  Elizabeth,  died 
November  12th,  1729,  in  her  sixty-eighth  year.  Both  together  with  three  of  their 
children,  Mary,  Catherine  and  George,  are  buried  in  Kirknewton  church. '^ 

1732 — 1770.  Thomas  Orde,  M.A.  Lincoln  College,  Oxford.  Instituted  20th  March,  1732.^  Vicar 
of  Kirknew^ton  for  nearly  forty  years.  Died  April  27th,  1770,  aged  66  years.  His 
wife,  Sarah,  died  May  13th,  1778,  aged  70  years.  Both  buried  in  Kirknewton 

1770 — 1778.  William  Lamb.  Merton  College,  Oxford.  M.A.,  1770."  Presented  27th  September, 
1770.^     Voted  for  Kirknewton  tithes  in  1774."    Died  1778." 

1778 — 1802.  John  Hogarth.  Instituted  12th  August,  i778.«  Died  at  Kirknewton  31st  January. 

1802— 1818.  John  Boucher,  M.A.  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford.  Rector  of  Shaftesbury 
and  vicar  of  Kirknewton.  Died  November  12th,  i8i8,  aged  41.  His  daughter 
Wilhelmina,  his  youngest  child,  died  April  5th,  1817,  aged  nine  months,  buried  beside 
her  father."^ 

1  Randal,  Stale  of  the  Churches,  p.  26.         '  Laing  Charters,  p.  53.  '  Barnes,  Visitations,  pp.  39,  41- 

*  Ibid.  pp.  77,  78.  5  Randal,  State  of  the  Churches,  p.  26.  «  P.R.O.  Liber  Inslitutionum. 

'  Ecclesiastical  Inquests,  1650 — Arch.  Aeliana  O.S.  vol.  iii.  pp.  5-6. 

'  Survey  of  the  Churches  of  Northumberland,  1663 — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.    vol.  xvii.  p.  255. 

'  Hunter  MS.  12,  No.  193. 

"  RawUnson  MS.  B.  250,  fol.  22 — Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiquaries,  3rd  series,  vol.  ii.  p.  118. 
1'  Foster,  Alumni  Oxon. 

"  Letter  of  Alexander  Davidson,  January  27th,  1685 — Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  334-335- 
"  Lambert,  MS.  "  Northumberland  Poll  Book.  "  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1802. 

'*  Mural  Tablet,  Kirknewton  Church.  "  Consistory  Court  Visitation  Books. 


1818 — 1827.  Anthony  Thomas,  D.D.  Vicar  of  Chillingham,  presented  to  Kirknewton  as  a  stopgap 
on  death  of  Boucher.  One  Mr.  Wood  acted  as  his  curate.'  Voted  for  Kirknewton 
tithes  at  both  elections  in  1826.- 

1827 — 1855.  Christopher  Robinson.  Appointed  vicar  of  Kirknewton  on  death  of  Thomas.' 
Vicar  for  twenty-eight  years.  Died  February  ist,  1855,  aged  66.  Buried  in  the 
churchyard.     His  widow  Ehzabeth  died  25th  June,  1870,  aged  82.* 

1855 — 1856.  Moses  Mitchell,  MA.  Died  2ist  April,  1856,  aged  50.  Buried  in  Kirknewton 

1857 — 1878.         P.  G.  McDouall. 

1878 — 1882.         Morris  PiDDOCKh,  M..^.  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 

1882 — 1886.  Richard  S.mith,  MA.  Died  12th  January,  1886,  aged  52.  Monument  to  his  memory 
erected  in  the  churchyard  by  the  parishioners. 

1886 — 1910.         Morris  Piddocke,  for  the  second  time. 

1910 —  Maurice  Morris  PiDDOCKE,  L.Th.  University  College,  Durham.     Son  of  the  last  vicar. 

BowMONT  Union  Meeting. 

The  Bowmont  Union  Meeting  was  founded  in  1850,  and  the  church 
was  built  in  1852,  by  a  Union  of  United  Presbyterians  and  EngHsli 

Succession  of  Ministers. 

1852  — 1872.  David  Taylor.  Ordained  25th  May,  1852.  Resigned  in  1872,  and  went  to  the 

1872 — 1882.  Bat.lantyne  Brodie,  M.A.  of  the  University  of  Glasgow.  Son  of  a  missionary  in 
Trinidad.  Ordained  19th  November,  1872."  Resigned  in  1882,  and  retired  to 
Wooler.     Died  191 6. 

1882 — 1895.  John  Davidson,  of  the  University  of  Glasgow.'  Ordained  1882.  Translated  in  1895 
to  Douglas,  Isle  of  Man.^ 

1895 — igio.  Robert  F.  McGarritv,  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh.  Ordained  to  Beaumont 
gth  July,  1895.^     Translated  in  1910  to  Hull,  and  thence  in  1913  to  Wark-on-Tyne.^,' 

1910 — 1915.  John  H.  King,  B.A.  of  Westminster  College,  Cambridge.  Ordained  to  Beaumont  17th 
November,  1910.     Resigned  in  1915.' 

1915 —  John  McKee,  B..'^.  of  Belfast  College,  and  the  University  of  Cambridge.        Ordained  in 

Liverpool  in  1913.° 

'  Archdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation,  1828 — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255. 
-  Northumberland  Poll  Book. 

'  Archdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation,    1828 — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255. 
'  Window  to  his  memory  in  Kirknewton  church.      Monument  in  Churchyard. 
'  Ex  inf.  Mr.  D.  B.  Shaw,  editor  of  Fasti  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England. 
'  Ex  inf.  Mr.  R.  S.  Robson,  Presbyterian  Historical  Society  of  England. 



Descent  of  the  Manor. — Lanton,^  nestling  on  the  sunny  side  of  the 
river  Glen  and  sheltered  by  rising  ground  from  the  north — a  far  more  desirable 
place  of  residence  than  the  bleaker  Kirknewton,  which  is  sheltered  by 
the  Cheviots  more  from  the  sun  than  from  the  cold  blasts — was  in  the 
middle  ages  of  greater  importance  and  more  populated  than  the  township 
which  contained  the  parish  church. ^  The  family  of  Strother,  too,  so  long 
associated  with  Kirknewton,  seems  to  have  held  the  manor  of  Lanton  at  a 
time  when  it  possessed  only  one  small  holding  across  the  river.  The  township 
was  a  member  of  the  barony  of  Roos,^  and  the  first  recorded  owner  of 
property  therein  is  one  Walter  Corbet,  who  gave  certain  lands  to  the 
Hospitallers.  They  in  turn  sold  them  some  time  during  the  reign  of 
King  John  to  Patrick,  the  clerk  of  Newton  in  Glendale,  for  thirteen 
pence  and  the  right  to  the  third  part  of  each  owner's  chattels  on  his 
death.*  This  Walter  Corbet  must  have  been  the  man  whose  daughter 
and  heir  was  married  to  William,  son  of  Patrick,  earl  of  Dunbar,^ 
for  some  time  before  1280  Nicholas  Corbet  conveyed  'the  lordship  of 
Langetoun  in  Glendale  with  all  its  right  in  the  vill  of  Langetoun'  to 
his  brother  Sir  Walter  Corbet,  for  the  payment  of  one  penny  yearly  at  the 
feast  of  the  Assumption.^  It  is  thus  obvious  that  the  manor  or  lordship  of 
Lanton  was  the  property  of  Walter  Corbet,  and  passed  through  his  daughter 
Christine  to  her  eldest  son  Nicholas,  who  adopted  his  mother's  surname, 
and  that  Nicholas  handed  it  on  to  his  brother  Walter,  though  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  township  lay  outside  the  manor  and  in  other  hands. '^  The 
later  descent  of  this  property  is  traceable  through  the  fortunes  of  Lanton 
mill,  standing  at  the  western  extremity  of  the  township,  now  a  picturesque 
ruin.     Litigation  in  1293  revealed  that  both  Nicholas  and  Walter  were  dead, 

'  The  earlier  form  of  the  name  is  Lang{e)ton=Long-farm. 

2  The  modem  census  returns  are  :  1801,  8i  ;  i8n,  60  ;  1821,69;  1831,78;  1841,83;  1851,84;  1861, 
74;     1871,71;    1881,68;    1891,77;    1901,60;    1911,65.     The  township  contains  971897  acres. 

'Quo  Warranto,  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  134-136;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xviii.  pp.  390-391. 

■■  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  iv.  p.  83.  s  gee  pedigree  of  Gospatric,  N.C.H.  vol.  vii.  p.  104. 

*  Laing  Charters,  p.  3,  The  document  is  printed  among  the  proofs  of  the  Strother  pedigree  in  Foster, 
Visitations,  p.  115.  Nicholas  Corbet  was  son  and  heir  of  WiUiam  son  of  Patrick,  earl  of  Dunbar,  and  both 
he  and  his  brother  Walter  are  mentioned  in  a  gift  of  land  in  Colwell  made  to  the  latter  by  their  father  between 
1248  and  1253.     Document  in  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  115. 

'  Vide  infra  p.  139. 


the  former's  wife  having  dower  on  the  whole  estate,  and  the  latter's  on  the 
remaining  two  parts.     Walter's  son  William  had  also  died,  and  his  wife  too 
enjoyed  dower,  so  that  very  little  was  for  the  time  being  left  to  the  existing 
owner,  Walter  Corbet,  a  minor  in  the  guardianship  of  his  overlord,  Robert 
Roos  of  Wark.     On  Lanton  mill  itself  there  was  a  charge  of  20  marks  rent 
held  by  one  Robert  Mitford.^      The  Corbets  were  non-resident  owners ;    in 
1296  no  one  of  that  name  was  assessed  for  the  subsidy,  and  as  so  often  hap- 
pened in  such  cases,  the  vill  was  well  populated  by  fairly  substantial  tenants. 
Fifteen  inhabitants  were  assessed,  ranging  from  Robert  of  Jacum  at  £6  5s.  4d. 
to  Walter  Wyal  at  12s.,  the  sum  total  of  assessable  goods  being  £35  9s.  3d.2 
It  was  Walter  Corbett  who  introduced  the  Strother  family  to  the  township, 
as  in  1315  or  1317  he  granted  to  William  Strother  and  Joan  his  wife  for  their 
lives  his  manor  of  'Langtoun  in  Glendale,'  with  all  his  demesne  lands  thereto 
belonging,  except  the  lands  held  of  him  by  husbandmen  and  cottars,^  and 
the  rents  of  free  tenants,  the  mill  and  the  wood  there.     Included  in  the 
gift  was  the  work  due  by  custom  from  the  servile  tenants  to  the  lords  of  the 
vill,  but  not  the  rents  they  owed,  and  in  addition  there  were  granted  estovers 
and  herbage  in  Lanton  wood,  freedom  for  the  grantees  and  their  tenants 
in  the  manor  to  have  their  corn  ground  at  Lanton  mill  free  of  multure  and 
rumfree,  and  for  the  grantees  to  have  the  right  to  hold  a  manorial  court 
for  the  'punishment  of  all  offences  against  them  and  their  tenants  caused 
by  the  grantees  tenants,   together  with  all  amercements,  fines  and  other 
privileges  attached  to  such  a  court.''*     On  June  2nd,  1318,  Walter  Corbet 
released  to  William  Strother  and  Joan  all  right  and  claim  which  he  had  to 
the  lands,  tenements  and  rights  above  demised  for  life,^  and  this  conve}'ance 
was  in  the  following  year  formally  secured  by  fine,  in  which  the  property 
was  described  as  '  the  manor  of  Langeton  in  Glendale  with  appurtenances 
saving  a  mill  and  40s.  rent  in  the  said  manor. '^     Meanwhile  the  mill  had 
passed  into  William  Strother's  hands  by  a  grant  of  23rd  November,  13 18, 
whereby  both  it  and  the  suit  due  thereto,  together  with  Lanton  wood,  were 
conveyed  to  him  with  provision,  that  if  Walter,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  were  to 
dispute  this  writing,  he  should  pay  £10  sterling  at  the  next  feast  of  the  Puri- 
fication, and  '  then  this  charter  with  seisin  of  the  said  mill  and  wood,  with  a 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edvv.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  330-332. 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  loi.  '  Exceptis  terris  meis  husbandorum,  cotariorum. 

*  Laing  Charters,  p.  7.  *  Ibid.  p.  8.     Also  printed  in  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  115. 

•  Pedes  Finium,  13  Edw.  II.  No.  46 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xii.  p.  72. 

Vol.   XI.  17 




Arms  :  Gules  a  lion  rampant  silver  {Glover's  Ordinary).  This  shield, 
deriveti  from  that  of  the  earls  of  Dunbar,  is  borne  by  Nicholas  Corbet 
on  his  equestrian  seal  (Laing  Charters  No.  9),'  and  on  the  armorial 
seal  of  Walter  Corbet  {Ibid.  No.  21).  The  latter's  son  Roger  uses 
the  canting  device  of  a  'corbie'  in  a  border  0)  bezants  (Ibid.  No.  43). 

(')  It  is  described  as  a  'talbot  salient  collared,'  but  this  is  an  impossible 
charge  for  the  date.  The  editor  has  mistaken  for  it  the  thin  lithe 
lion  of  the  thirteenth  century.  It  is  correctly  called  a  hon  in 
Hodgson,  pt.  ii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  117-118,  notes  5  and  6. 

Asa  («)  =  Walter  Corbet  («). 

Robert  Corbet,  mentioned  before 
his  brother  Walter  as  witness 
to  Colpinhope  Charter  (n). 
Probably  predeceased  his 
brother,  without  heir. 

Walter  Corbet  of  Makerston  — 
in  Roxburghshire  {g 

Christine,  daughter 
and  heir  («) ;  died 
124 1  (0). 

William,  younger 
son  of  Patrick, 
fifth  son  of  earl 
of  Dunbar  (a). 

(')  Ralph,  son  =  Margery, 
of     William,        li\'ing     1293 

and  husband 
in  1293  (c). 

(c);  daughter 
and  co-heir 
of  Hugh 
Bolbeck    (/). 

(1)  Nicholas  Corbet  (a), 
heldLantonin  1256 
(m);  hvingi263  (/)  ; 
gave  Lanton  to  his 
brother  Walter  be- 
fore 1280  (6). 

Patrick  Corbet, 
brother  and 
heir  of  Sir 
Nicholas  Cor- 
bet, c.  1280 

Walter     Corbet  =  J  o  a  n , 
(a) ,  died  before  '      widow 
1293  (c). 


p)  Thomas  Hepple,  second  husband  in  1293  (c).  =  Lorette  =y{^)  William  Corbet,  died  before  1290  (h). 

Isolde,     died  =  Walter  Corbet    a  minor  in  wardship  of   Robert   Roos   of  Wark  in  1293  (c)  ;   died  before 
1330  {d).      I         1325-6  (d). 

=  Roger  Corbet  of  Lanton,  leases  lands  there  1330  (e). 
Eleanor,  daughter  of  Henry  Strother  (A).  ==  John  Corbet,  son  and  heir,  died  before  1379  (e). 

(')  John  Ceretoun   of  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  =  Ehzabeth,  daughter  =(')  Robert  Rea  (t) ,  died  before 
EUzabeth's  second  husband  in  1387  {p).  and  heir  (i).  1387  (p). 

(a)  Document  circa  1248- 1253  in  Foster,  Visita- 
tions, p.  1 15. 

(6)  Laing  Charters,  p.  3. 

(e)  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xviii.  pp.  230-231. 

(d)  Originalia — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  299-300. 

{e)   Laing  Charters,  p.  10. 

if)    Ibid,  pp.3-4. 

(?)  Raine,  North  Durham,  app.  No.  dccxiv,  p.  125. 

(A)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  81,  m3 — Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  xvvii.  p.  395. 

(i)   Laing  Charters,  p.  18. 

(A)  Laing  Charters,  p.  17. 

(/)    Exccrptae  Rot.  Fin.  vol.  ii.  p.  393. 

(m)  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc), 
pp.   1-2. 

(n)  Liber  de  Calchon,  vol.  ii.  Nos.  359,  360,  361. 
These  charters  are  undated,  and  Robert 
and  Walter  might  have  been  brothers  of 
Christine,  but  the  death  of  both  without 
heirs  before  their  father  is  unlikely. 

(0)   Chron.  de  Mailros,  p.  153. 

(p)  Laing  Charters,  p.  21. 


certain  recognition  in  the  king's  exchequer  of  £60,  made  to  the  said  Walter 
by  the  said  William,  shall  be  quashed  and  of  none  effect,  and  it  shall  be 
lawful  to  Walter  to  enter  to  the  mill  and  wood  without  contradiction.'^ 

Thus  Lanton  manor  became  the  absolute  property  of  the  Strothers, 
while  the  mill  was  mortgaged  to  them.  Further  to  this  was  added,  by  a 
separate  gift,  the  services  of  the  free  tenants  in  all  respects,  save  as  to  the 
mill,  the  chief  of  whom  was  David  Baxter, ^  who  died  in  1323,  holding  a 
messuage  and  five  bovates  of  land  of  William  Strother  by  service  of  half  a 
mark  yearly.^  William  Strother  had  some  trouble  in  connection  \\ith  this 
property  in  the  very  next  year,  when  he  had  to  sue  certain  malefactors  for 
breaking  two  of  his  houses  in  Lanton  and  carrying  ofiE  the  trees  and  the 
building  wood  thereto  belonging,*  and  in  1325  he  was  compelled  to  yield  a 
third  of  the  manor  to  Isolde  Corbet,  as  dower  after  the  death  of  her  husband 
Walter. 5  The  Corbets  still  held  land  in  the  township,  and  Roger  Corbet, 
son  of  Walter,  seems  to  have  lived  there,  as  he  is  described  as  of  Lanton 
when  he  demised  all  his  tenements,  both  those  held  in  demesne  and  those 
held  of  him  in  villeinage,  in  Lanton,  Westnewton  and  Kirknewton  to  William 
Strother  and  Joan  for  their  lives  as  from  Whitsuntide,  1330,  the  rent  for  the 
first  two  years  being  one  mark  yearly,  for  the  following  six  years  two  marks 
each  year,  and  46s.  8d.  yearly  for  the  rest  of  the  period.  To  this  he  added 
a  similar  grant  of  the  dower  lands,  which  his  mother  Isolde  had  held  in  the 
three  vills,  at  a  rent  of  13s.  4d.  yearly  for  eight  years  from  Martinmas,  1330, 
and  20s.  yearly  thereafter.  On  William  Strother's  death  this  last  grant 
was  renewed  in  favour  of  his  widow  Joan,^  who  soon  found  herself  called  on 
to  substantiate  her  rights.  In  1334  she  sued  Elizabeth,  widow  of  David 
Baxter,  for  what  was  probabl}'  a  refusal  of  rent,^  and  in  the  following  year 
she  prosecuted  William,  son  of  Sampson  of  Westnewton,  on  some  count 
which  was  not  revealed.^  Her  son,  Henry  Strother,  had  come  into  the 
property  by  1351,  when  he  agreed  to  give  lands  in  'Lanton,  Newton  and 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  8.  -  Ibid.  pp.  8-9. 

'  Cal.  oj  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.  Called  David  of  Lanton.  For  identification  ^vith  David  Baxter,  see 
page  226. 

*  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  256,  m.  i09do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  60S-609. 

'  Originalia,  19  Edw.  II — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  299-300. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  10.  These  deeds  are  all  dated  at  Lanton,  which  confirms  the  supposition  that 
Roger  Corbet  lived  there.  About  this  time  he  also  released  all  his  right  to  the  lands  given  to  William  Strother 
and  Joan  by  his  father      Ibid. 

'  Assize  Roll,  Cumberland,  6-S  Hdw.  III. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiv.  pp.  1229-1230. 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  9  Edw.  III. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  p.  355. 



Kirkncwton,'  to  the  value  of  ;^io  to  his  son  John  on  his  betrothal  to  Mary, 
daughter  of  Alan  Heton.^  It  was  this  Henry  who  secured  the  remaining 
Corbet  property  in  Lanton,  doubtless  those  portions  which  had  been  leased 
to  his  father  and  mother,  by  grant  from  Roger  Corbet  of  'seven  husband- 
lands  and  all  other  lands  and  holdings  which  the  grantor  had  in  the  town 
and  territory  of  Langtoun  in  Glendale.'  The  deed  was  executed  at  Lanton, 
but  Roger  was  described  as  lord  of  Learchild,  which  suggests  that  he  had  now 
gone  to  live  on  this  portion  of  his  property.^ 

p.  182. 

•  Dodsworth  MS.  45,  fol.  54do. 

■  Laing  Charters,  p.  12.     Seisin  was  not  given  till  1359. 

Ibid.  p.  14.      For  Learchild  see  N.C.H.  vol.  vii. 


Arms  :  Gules  on  a  bend  silver  three  splayed  eagles  vert.  (Jenyn's  Roll 
and  Roll  of  Richard  II.  ed.  Willement).  See  also  Arch.  Ael. 
3rd  ser.  vol.  i.  p.  117,  Seal  of  Henry  Strother  as  sheriff  of 
Northumberland,  Arch.  Ael.  3rd  ser.  vol.  xi.  p.  223,  and  seal  of 
IVilliavi  Strother,  A.D.  1359,  pi.  facing  p.  152,  No.  7. 

William  Strother,  third  son  of  Alan  Strother,  lord  of  Lyham  ;  =  Joan 
acquired  manor  of  Lanton  and  lands  in  Newton,  circa  (a). 
1318  {a)  ;   died  1330  (6). 

Henrj'  Strother,  ■ 
son  and  heir 
(c) ;  '  le  piere ' ; 
i)uys  Money- 
laws,  1369  (h)  ; 
lord  of  Lanton, 
1370  (e) ;  lord 
of  Newton, 

Marj',  dau .  of 
Sir  Alan  Heton 
{d);  living  1372 
(»!) ;  married 
as  her  second 
husband  be- 
fore 13S8,  Sir 
William  Swin- 
burne {at). 

(')  William  Strother,  lands  bought  by  = 
his  father  in  Shotton  entailed  on  him 
1329(A);   mayor  of  Newcastle,  1355- 
1360;  M.P.  for  Newcastle,  1358  and 
1360  {bb)  ;    died  probably  in  1364. 

=  (')  Maud,  dau.  of 
Adam  Graper  and 
of  Agnes,  dau.  of 
Richard  Emeldon, 
aged  24  in  1349 


Joan,  daughter  and  heiress  =  John  Scott    Uving  1369 
in  1369  (as).  {as}. 

Alan  Strother,  bro- 
ther of  William 
Strother,  mayor 
of  Newcastle  and 
sheriff  of  North- 
umberland in 
'357  {bg)  ;  bailiff 
of  Tyndale  1369 

John  Strother,  first  son,   in  Moneylaw's  entail, 
1369  (h)  ;  betrothed,  1351  (d)  ;  living  1379  (i). 

John  Graydon  {g)  - 

I    I 

Henry  Strother,  second  son,  in  Money- 
laws  entail,  1369  (k)  ;    living  1372  (m). 

Thomas  Strother,  third  son,  in  Money- 
laws  entail,   1369  (n)  ;    Uving  1372  (m). 

John  Newton,  glover,  of  York,  1421  [g). 

I  I 

Joan,  living  Eleanor,  widow  = 
1372  {m).     circa  1372  (/). 

:  John  Corbet  of 
Learchild  (/). 


Matilda,     daughter    of     John  =  Thomas= Henry  Strother, 

Hicchorne  or  Heethhorne, 
kt.,  wife  of  Thomas  Strother, 
who  received  land  in  West 
Newton  in  1387  (e),  and  in 
Kirknewton  in  1388  (A). 

kt.  {g). 

brother  and 
heir  of  Thomas 
in  1420  {g). 

..=  Alan  Strother,  given   Money  laws 
by  brother  Henry,  1375  (d). 

William  Strother,  living  1409  (0). 



(•)  daughter    of  =  William  Strother  of  Wallington,  son  of  Thomas  Strother,  kt., 

Widdrington(^).  I       and  of  the  daughter  of  Swinburne  of  Capheaton  (/>). 

(*)  daughter  and  heiress 
of  Humphrey  Wal- 
Ungton  [p). 

daughter  of  Thomas  Horton  of  = 

Horton  {/>). 

-  Thomas  Strother, 
kt.  (/>). 

Mary  {p). 

(') daughter! 

of  Henry 
Haggers  ton 

:  Thomas  Strother, 
settled  Kirknew- 
ton,  etc.,  1516  {(j). 


daughter  = 

of        Robert 
Ogle,  kt.   ip) 

WilHam  Stro- 
ther, abiding  at 
St.  Alban,  first 
in  the  entail  of 

Richard  Strother  of  Duddoe,=Margaret,  daughter   of 

second    in    the    entail    of 
1 5 16  (q);     living     1520    [t] 
died  before  1535  (r). 

William  Mare  of 
Newcastle  (p) ;  living 
at  Duddoe,  1540  (s). 

Thomas,  in  the  entail  of  15 16  {q), 
Roger,  in  the  entail  of  15 16  {q). 
Edmund,  in  the  entail  of  15 16  {q). 

(1)  dau. 

of  Edmund 
Horsley  of 
Milbou  me 


William      Stro- : 
ther,       settled 
Kirkne  wton, 
1535  (O  ;  living 
1540   (s). 

(')  Barbara,  dau. 
of  Sir  Richard 
Grey  of  Horton 
[bh),  {bij. 

Agnes,     daughter  =  William   Strother,  son  and  heir  in 

of  Thomas 
Grey  of  Adder- 
stone,  betroth- 
ed ISSSW- 

1535  W  ;    living  1549  («)• 

Clement  Strother 


Isabel  (61). 


Roger  Strother  of  Alnwick, 
third  in  the  entail  of 
1516  iq). 

Henry  Strother  of  Bothal, 
fourth  in  the  entail  of 
1516  (q). 

Oswin    Strother,  fifth 
in  the  entail  of  15 16 

(»)  Jane,  dau-  =  William  Strother  (aa)  =  {')  Elizabeth   John  Strother  died= Clement  Strother  of  Duddoe, 

ghter  of 
John  Selby 
of  Twisell 
{w)  ;  living 
1589  {x). 

of  Newton  (r) ;  living 
1565  {w)\  settled 
Kirknewton  1579  {z)\ 
had  a  mortgage  on 
Fowberry  estate  159 1 
(bk) ;  will  dated  8th 
May,  1612  {y).  J 


before  1579  (z). 

Robert  Strother,  in  the  entail  of 
1579  (z)  :  described  as  of  West 
Newton,    1612  (y);    living   1617 

in  the  entail  of  1579  (2)  ; 
died  before  16 17  (a/"). 
Thomas  Strother  of  Canno 
Mill,  in  the  entail  of  1579 
{:)  ;  buried  25th  June,  1620, 
St.  Nicholas,  Bath  {be). 

Thomas  Strother  of  Chatton  {z),  will  dated  3rd  January,  — 
1603  ;  proved  1603  {av). 

Ralph  Strother,  minor  in  1603  {av). 

Eleanor  {av). 

Clement  Strother  (::). 

Two  daughters,  mentioned  in  their 
grandfather's  will  (y). 

(«)  Ephrahim  Wid-  ■■ 
drington,      k  t . 
{ay),  married  at 
Gateshead     7th 
Aug.,   1615- 

Eleanor,  daughter  of  John 
Conyers  of  Sockburn ; 
marriage  settlement  loth 
November,  1589  {aw); 
jointure  15th  April,  1591 

(')  Launcelot  Strother  (aa), 
heir  apparent  in  1589 
(aw)  ;  purchased  Fow- 
berry tower  1589  (a/)  ; 
will  dated  30th  July, 
161 1  (au)  ;  died  gth 
August,  161 1  (a/). 

I    I 
William    Strother,     second 
son  in  entail  of  1579  {z) ; 
not  in  father's  will  (y). 

Thomas  Strother,  fourth 
son  in  the  entail  of 
1579  (  -')• 


Clement  Strother,  "the  younger,  "  =.... 
third  son  in  the  entail  of  1579  (') ; 
of   Lanton    in   1611  {an);     living  | 
1613  {aa);  died  1637  {an).  William  Strother  of  Durham  {;') 

Lionel  Strother,  fifth  son  in  the  entail  of  1579 
{z),  of  Berwick  in  161 1  (aw);  living  in  163 1  (aa). 

daughter  = 



(')  G  e  o  r  g  e  =  Elizabeth  {ab),  dau.  • 
Heron,  of  and  heir  of  Roger 
Berwick  Selby  of  Grindon 
{afj ;  mar.  (a/) ;  mar.  settle- 
at Berwick,  ment  ist  August, 
19th.  Jan.,  1617  (ap);  living 
1636/7.  1653  (a?) ;  and  2 1st 

Mar.,  1660/1  (a/). 

(')  John  Strother  (aa),  eldest  son 
and  heir,  aged  16  jears  and  6 
months  in  161 1  (a/),  of  Lanton 
and  Newton  ;  admitted  to  Gray's 
Inn,  1614;  Uvingi6i5  {v)  ;  livery 
of  father's  estate  loth  February, 
1620  {am,  ax)  ;  died  2nd  Feb- 
ruary, 1631   (aa). 

William  Strother  (f);  living 
1631  (aa)  ;  had  /40  payable 
out  of  tithes  of  Akeld  for 
Ufe  in  1649  (W)  ;  of  Canno 
Mill  in  1653  (al) ;  will  dated 
1667  {ar). 

Launcelot  Strother,  living 
1631.  (v). 

Jane,  daughter 
of  Mark  Shaftoe 
of  Newcastle 
{aq)  ;  marriage 
settlement  loth 
Januarj-,  1652/3 
(al) ;  married  at 
St.  John's, New- 
castle, loth 
Jan.,  1652/3; 
living  19th  Nov. 
1705  (a/). 

William  Strother, 
aged  5  years  6 
months  Feb.  2nd, 
1631  {aa)  '  colonel 
Wilham  Strother 
of  Kirknewton, 
1652  {ad)  ;  will 
dated  8th  October, 
1697 ;  proved 1701 
{ah) ;  buried  5th 
July,  1699  («/)• 

John  Strother  {ab), 
given  Fowberry  for 
life  by  his  brother, 
1654  {af);  party  to 
a.deed  of  21st  March, 
1660  {aj). 

Anne  {ab). 

Margery  {ab). 

Mary  (ad),  wife  of  Ralph 
Maers  of  London, 
D.M.;  living  i66o(a/). 

I    I    I 

Anne  {v),  in  father's 
will  "Agnes"  (au) ; 
hving  1625  (v). 

EUzabeth  {v),  second 
wife  of  WilUam 
Orde  of  West  New- 
biggin  ;  married 
at  Berwick,  22nd 
June,  1626. 

Jane,  living  1615  [v). 

I    I    I 

Eleanor  {v),  married  to 
James  Burrell  at  Ber- 
wick -  upon  -  Tweed, 
4th  Feb.,   1620/1. 

Catherine,  living   1615 

Mary  (f),  called  Mary 
Selby  in  will  of  Sir 
Wm.  Selby  of  the 
Moat,  county  Kent, 
14th  April,  1637  (az). 


Margaret,  daughter  =  William   Strother,  of  Grindon 

of  Sir  Ralph 
Delaval  ;  mar- 
riage settlement 
31st  December, 
1675  {ap)  ;  living 
1 710  {aq). 

Ridge,  bapt.  at  St.  John's, 
Newcastle,  ist  November, 
1653;  admitted  to  St.  John's 
College,  Cambridge,  i8th 
May,  1671,  and  to  Gray's 
Inn,  13th  May,  1672;  will 
dated  2nd  Februarj',  1708; 
proved  J  709  {ai). 


Mark  Strother,  baptised  St.  =  Martha 

John's,   Newcastle,    loth        

August,  1660,  second  son 
in  entail  of  1684  {af); 
high  sheriff  of  North- 
umberland, 1714  ;  will 
dated  4th  October,  1723  ; 
proved  1 726  {ac);  died  s.p. 
loth  January  1726  {af). 

William  Strother, 
baptised  25th 
May,  1679  {bd). 

Mary  {ac),  born  at  Seaton  Delaval  =  Walter     Ker 

I    I 

Charles  Strother, 
third  son  in  en- 
tail of  1684  {afj: 
died  s.p.  1700 

John  Strother, 
fourth  son  in 
entail  of  1684 
{af);  died  s.p. 

2 1  St  October,  1683  {ag) ;  bond  of 
marriage,  loth  Oct.,  1702  ;  died 
15th  March,  1721/2  {af). 

of  Littleton 
in  Scotland 

John  Strother  Kerr,  of  Fowberry,  baptised  28th  =Rt.  Hon.  Lady 
September,    1704  (bd) ;    entered   on   estates  Jean  Ramsey 

1726  {af);  sold  Kirknewton,  1762  {ap).  {ap). 

Anne,  born  14th  October ;  bapt- 
ised 15th  October;  buried  i6th 
October,  1676  {ag). 

Margaret,  born  at  Grindon  Ridge  ; 
baptised  i6th  January,  1681/2 

Jane,  born  at  Grindon  Ridge; 
baptised  25th  June,  1690  {bd). 

(»)  Jane  Hutch- 
inson, mar. 
at  St.  Nich- 
olas's, New- 
castle, 23rd 
April,  1705. 

=  Robert    Strother  =  (')  Mary 
of       Fowberry,  (a/), 

fifth  son  in  en- 
tail of  1684  {aj); 
will  dated  29th 
May,  1723(0;); 
proved  1723; 
died  s.p.  {ap). 


Thomas  Strother,     Mary,  wife  of  Thomas  Orde  of  Felkmgton  ;  bap. 
sixth      son      in  25th  September,  1656,  at  St.  John's,  New- 

entail    of    1684  castle;   buried  4th  January,  1737  (bd). 

{af);    died  s.p.     Elizabeth,  wife  of  William  Ogle  of  Causey  Park 
1703(0/).  (6/);     baptised    loth   May,    1658,    at    St. 

John's,  Newcastle. 
Jane,  wife  of  WiUiara  Carr  of  Eshot  {be) ;  bom 
at    Grindon    Ridge;     baptised   25th  June, 
1664  {bd)  ;  bond  of  marriage,  6th  May,  1682. 

(a)  Laing,  Charters,  p.  7. 

(6)  Ibid.  p.  10. 

(c)  Cal.  Close  Rolls,  1360-1364,  p.  332. 

{d)  Dodsworth  MS.  45,  ff.  53,  54  do. 

(e)  Laing,  Charters,  p.  21. 

(/)  Ibid.  p.  17. 

{g)  York  Memoranda  Book,  vol.  ii.  pp.  113-114. 

(A)  Laing,  Charters,  pp.  21-22. 

(i)    Ibid.  p.  18. 

{k)   Pedes  Finium,  3  Edw.  III.  No.  7 — Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  xxxix.  pp.  11-13. 
(/)    Document  in  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  64. 
(m)  Laing,  Charters,  pp.  17-18. 
(«)  Cal.  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  p.  292. 
(0)   Laing,  Charters,  p.  24. 



(p)  '  Pedigree  belonging  ye  Strothers.'  A  very  muti- 
lated document  dating  from  late  xvi.  century, 
transcribed  in  Lambert  MS.  It  cannot  be 
relied  on  and  is  manifestly  totally  incorrect 
for  the  earlier  generations,  though  it  helps  to 
connect,  very  probably  incorrectly,  the 
Strothers  of  the  early  fifteenth  with  those  of 
the  early  sixteenth  century. 
Laing,  Charters,  p.  79. 
Ibid.  pp.  104-105. 


Ibid.  p.  119. 
Ibid.  p.  82. 

P-  39- 


(m)  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  i. 

(t))    Foster,  Visitations,  p. 

[w]  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  235. 

{x)    Laing,  Charters,  p.  295. 

iy)    Raine,  Tesiamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  27. 

(z)    Laing,  Charters,  pp.  244,  300. 

(aa)  Ibid.  pp.  499-500. 

(ab)  Ibid.  p.  519. 

(ac)  Waterford  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  79. 

(ad)  Laing,  Charters,  pp.  570-571. 
iae)    Ibid.  p.  676. 

Fowberry   Deeds — Proceedings    of  Newcastle 


Antiquaries,  3rd  series,  vol.  x.  pp. 
Earsdon  Register.     Cf.  N.C.H.  vol.  ix. 
Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  iv.  p.  199. 
Ibid.  vol.  iv.  p.  231. 
Ibid.  vol.  v.  p.  15. 


(ak)  Ibid.  vol.  v.  p.  29. 

(at)    Laing,  Charters,  p.  571. 

(am)  Ibid.  p.  440. 

(an)  Ibid.  p.  525. 

(ao)    Ibid.  p.  647. 

(ap)  Kirknewton  Deeds. 

(aq)  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  Bundle  292,  No. 
49  ;    Bundle  372,  No.  55. 

(ar)    Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  vii.  p.  71. 

(as)    Laing,  Charters,  p.  16. 

(at)  Inq.  p.m.  11  Ric.  IL  No.  31 — Duke's  Trans- 
cripts, vol.  xxxviii.,  p.  165. 

(a«)  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  45. 

(av)   Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  165. 

(aw)  Laing,  Charters,  p.  295. 

(ax)   Ibid.  p.  440. 

(ay)   Ibid.  p.  300. 

(az)    Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  vi.  p.  33. 

(ba)  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  ix.  p.  87. 

(bb)  Brand's  Newcastle,  vol.  ii.  pp.  414-415  ;  Laing, 

Charters,  p.  14. 
(be)    Genealogist,  N.S.  vol.  x.  p.  105. 

(bd)  Norham  Register. 

(be)  N.C.H.  vol.  vii.  p.  347. 

(bf)  Ogle  and  Bothal,  p.  96. 

(bg)  Dodsworth  MS.  32,  fol.  106. 

(bh)   Dalton's  Fjsiia/j'oK  (Surtees' Soc.  No.  121)  p.  134. 
(bi)    Hegge    MSS.      Brit.     Museum    Add.    MSB." 

27,  423,  £f.  159  do. -160  do. 
(bk)  P.R.O.    Court    of  Requests,  Elizabeth,   159 1, 

No.  620. 
(bl)  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  347. 

The  Strothers  had  no  sooner  managed  to  secure  the  whole  of  the  Corbet 
property  in  the  township,  than  it  was  reft  from  them  by  the  king's  escheator 
on  the  ground  that  Walter  Corbet  had  been  implicated  in  the  rebellion  of 
Gilbert  Middleton  in  1317,  and  that  his  property  was  therefore  forfeit  to  the 
crown/  the  manor  being  valued  at  £()  iis.  4d.2  The  exact  date  of  the  seizure 
is  not  certain,  but  it  was  returned  to  Henry  in  February,  1360,  in  con- 
sideration of  many  losses  sustained  by  his  father  and  himself  by  the  wars 
of  Scotland  and  of  £20  paid  into  the  exchequer.^  Still  all  troubles  on 
account  of  this  somewhat  belated  seizure  were  not  over,  for  the  tenants 
of  the  manor  tried  to  escape  their  obligations,  and  in  1362  an  order 
explaining  the  situation  had  to  be  secured  from  the  king.'*  The 
chief  recalcitrant  was  David  Baxter,  grandson  of  the  David  Baxter  of  1323, 
who  held  lands  and  tenements  in  Lanton,  Howtel,  Newton,  Shotton  and  Crook- 
house  of  the  manor,  his  holding  in  Lanton  itself  being  one  messuage  and 
24  acres  of  land  held  by  knight's  service  and  suit  at  the  court  of  Lanton 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  p.  340. 

'  Chancery  Files,  Bundle  No.  265 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  11. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  p.  340;  Originalia,  34  Edw,  III. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  327. 

*  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1360-1364,  p.  332. 


every  three  weeks,  and  being  bound  by  the  terms  of  his  tenure  to  grind 
his  corn  at  Lanton  mill '  and  to  take  his  share  in  the  work  of  repairing  the 
mill  and  carting  mill  stones  to  it.  Besides  this  he  owed  an  annual  rent  of 
6s.  8d.,  together  with  4|-d.  for  castle  ward  and  2d.  for  cornage.  He  also 
held  another  messuage  and  24  acres  by  knight's  service  and  suit  at  the 
court  and  mill  of  Lanton  and  one  messuage  and  eight  acres  of  land  by  fealty, 
suit  of  court  every  three  weeks  and  service  of  carrying  his  lord's  letters 
between  Tyne  and  Tweed  at  his  own  expense  whenever  called  upon.  For 
this  holding  he  also  owed  suit  to  Lanton  mill,  including  the  duty  of  helping 
to  repair  it,  2d.  for  castle  ward  and  id.  for  cornage.  Twice  was  David 
served  with  writs  ordering  him  to  show  cause  why  he  should  not  attend, 
on  one  occasion  at  Lanton  itself,  but  for  long  he  refused  to  appear,  and  when 
he  did  put  in  a  defence  to  the  effect  that  he  held  no  lands  of  the  manor,  he 
used  all  the  technicalities  of  the  law  to  postpone  trial.  At  length  judgment 
was  given  against  him.^  Even  then  the  last  had  not  been  heard  of  the  trouble, 
as  in  November,  1364,  orders  had  to  be  issued  to  the  Strother  tenants  to 
answer  to  Henry  Strother  in  respect  of  the  rents  and  services  pertaining  to 
the  manor.  Among  these  were  the  prior  of  Kirkham,  Adam  Brome  of 
Howtel,  Walter  son  of  Adam  of  Howtel,  Alan  son  of  John  of  Howtel,  Adam 
son  of  Constance  of  Howtel,  and  Hugh  Sampson.^  Other  tenants  under 
the  Strothers  at  this  time  were  Joan  Coupland,  who  held  lands  in  Lanton 
in  1365,*  and  Robert  Lisle  of  Woodburn,  who  in  1365  settled  many  scattered 
possessions  in  Northumberland,  including  lands  in  Lanton  in  Glendale,  on 
his  grandson  and  heir  at  the  latter 's  marriage.^ 

Henry  Strother  is  described  as  lord  of  Lanton  in  Glendale  in  1370,^ 
and  in  1372  his  daughter  Eleanor,  widow  of  John  Corbet  of  Learchild, 
quitclaimed  to  him  all  right  which  she  had  in  the  manor, '^  but  though  still 
alive  in  1376,  he  had  by  then  given  his  Lanton  property  to  his  eldest  son 
John,^  who  in  that  year  charged  his  property  there  and  elsewhere  with  an 

•  Ad  tercium  decimum  vas. 

'  Coram  Jiege  Roll,  No.  407,  m.  52 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x-xxv.  pp.  95-97.  135-1-12. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1364-1367,  p.  39. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts   vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276. 

'  Laing  Charters,  pp.  15-16.  ^  Document  printed  in  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  115. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  17. 

'  ist  February,  1372,  'the  whole  manor  of  Langtoun  in  Glendale'  was  settled  on  John  Strother,  knight, 
son  of  Henry  Strother,  and  the  heirs  of  his  body  by  his  wife  Mary,  daughter  of  Sir  Alan  Heton — Laing 
Charters,  p.  17. 


annual  rent  of  £10  in  favour  of  John  Grey  of  Lowlyn.^  In  1415  the  tower 
of  Lanton  was  held  by  one  Henry  Strother,-  who  was  doubtless  the  Henry 
Strother  mentioned  as  brother  and  heir  of  Thomas  Strother  in  1420,^  and  son 
of  John  Strother.  This  Henry  Strother  in  1427  prosecuted  Thomas  Burrell, 
Robert  Fysshewyk  and  Robert  Keth,  all  of  Lanton,  for  trespass,*  but  in  the 
accounts  of  the  Feudal  Aid  of  1428  it  is  one  Thomas  Strother  who  is  recorded 
as  holding  what  is  for  the  first  time  called  a  moiety  of  the  vill  of  Lanton.^ 
From  this  time  forward  the  family  is  lost  sight  of  both  in  Lanton  and  else- 
where for  nearly  a  hundred  years  and  reappears  in  the  person  of  John  Strother 
of  Lanton  in  Glendale,  who  in  1507  was  pardoned  his  outlawry  for  not  having 
appeared  in  court  to  defend  a  suit  brought  against  him  by  Thomas  Lovell, 
knight,  touching  a  debt  of  100  marks. ^  By  this  time  the  Strothers  of  Lanton 
had  definitely  become  the  Strothers  of  Kirknewton,  to  which  place  they 
had  moved  their  residence,^  and  their  later  fortunes  are  to  be  found 
described  under  that  township.^ 

In  1541  Lanton  contained  '12  husbandlands  plenyshed,'^  and  towards 
the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  it  seems  to  have  been  used  for  providing 
for  the  younger  sons  of  the  family.  In  1592  John  Strother  of  Lanton  made 
his  will,  which  reveals  that  he  was  a  near  relative  of  the  owner  of  Kirk- 
newton, though  his  exact  connection  doesnot  transpire,^"  and  Clement  Strother, 
the  legitimate  and  younger  of  the  two  sons  of  William  Strother  of  Newton, 
who  bore  that  name,  obtained  a  life  interest  in  a  portion  of  this  property." 
He  appears  as  Clement  of  Lanton  in  1593,-^^  and  was  identical  with  the  man 
of  the  same  name  who  in  1586  was  involved  in  a  fray  between  the  Selbys 
and  the  CoUingwoods,  when  Sir  Cuthbert  Collingvvood  'caused  Clement 
Strother  to  be  assailed  by  eight  of  his  servants  and  friends,  who  shot  at  and 

'  Document  in  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  64.  -  List  of  Castles,  1415 — Border  Holds,  p.  17. 

'  York  Memorandum  Book,  vol.  ii.  pp.  113-114.  *  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1422-1429,  p.  374. 

'  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  86.  »  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1494-1509,  p.  548. 

'  The  only  mention  of  Lanton  as  a  residence  of  the  Strothers  from  this  time  onwards  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Visitation  of  1615  (Foster's  Visitation,  p.  115),  save  in  one  case  when  a  younger  son.  who  did  not  hold 
Kirknewton,  held  it  for  a  time.  It  is  probable  that  their  transference  of  residence  from  Lanton  to  Kirk- 
newton is  marked  by  their  lease  of  Lanton  tower  and  certain  lands  pertaining  thereto  to  John  Hall  of  Otter- 
burn  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.     See  page  142. 

'  See  pages  145-148.  ^  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

•»  He  alludes  to  his  wite  .^gnes,  Lancelot  Strother  of  Kirknewton,  his  brothers  Thomas.  Ralph  and 
Matthew,  and  his  nephew  James.       Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  125. 

"  Laing  Charters,  pp.  499-500.  '-  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  225. 

Vol.   XI.  iS 


struck  him  and  left  him  for  dead,  and  he  will  now  be  lame  as  long  as  he 
lives. '^  Under  the  title  'Clement  Strother  of  Langton,  yeoman,'  he  is 
described  in  1628  as  a  freeholder  in  Northumberland,^  and  he  was  still  alive 
in  1631,  when  his  nephew  John  Strother  died  seised  of  the  bastlehouse  in  the 
manor,  the  grain  water  mill,  and  three  husbandlands,  the  last  being  Clement 
Strother's  life  holding.  The  whole  was  held  of  Lord  Grey  of  Wark  for  an  eighth 
of  a  knight's  fee  and  was  valued  at  twenty  shillings  yearly.^  In  addition  to 
this  John  Strother  held  a  mortgage  on  a  piece  of  ground  called  '  The  Walker's 
Close,'  which  was  bounded  by  'the  commons  of  Langton'  on  the  east,  the 
river  Glen  on  the  south  and  Crookhouse  on  the  west  and  north,  the  property 
of  Emmanuel  Trotter  of  Newton,  clerk.'*  The  description  of  this  plot 
corresponds  so  exactly  to  the  site  of  Lanton  mill  as  to  make  its  identification 
somewhat  puzzling.  The  Strother  property  in  Lanton  was  used  to  provide 
portions  for  John  Strother's  younger  children,^  and  when  in  1649  William 
Strother,  John's  son,  having  been  involved  in  the  troubles  of  the  Civil  War, 
had  to  redeem  his  property  after  confiscation,  his  land  and  tithe  in  Lanton 
were  valued  at  £85  i6s.  8d.^  In  1663  he  was  rated  in  Lanton  on  a  rent  roll 
of  £55,  with  an  additional  £40  for  tithe  and  the  mill.'  The  property  passed 
with  Kirknewton  ultimately  to  John  Strother  Kerr,  who  in  1762  sold  to 
Alexander  Davison,  whose  grandfather  had  farmed  it  and  whose  father  had 
in  1748  voted  for  lands  there. ^  He  was  succeeded  by  his  son  John,  to  whose 
memory  his  brother  Alexander  erected  a  column  on  the  summit  of  Lanton 
hill,  and  at  whose  death  in  1827  the  property  went  to  Sir  William  Davison 
of  Swarland.  On  the  latter's  death  in  1873  it  passed  under  his  will  to  his 
daughter,  the  Baroness  von  Riederer,  who  immediately  sold  it  together 
with  Sandy  House  to  George  Frederick  D'Arcy,  second  earl  of  Durham. 
On  the  death  of  Lord  Durham  in  1879  it  passed  to  the  present  owner,  the  Hon. 
F.  W.  Lambton.^ 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  1580-1625,  p.  195. 

-  Freeholders  of  Northumberland,  i6j8 — Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  ii.  p.  321. 

'  Inq.  p.m. — Laing  Charters,  pp.  499-500. 

'  31st  October,  1626.     Laing  Charters,  p.  474. 

'  Ibid.  p.  519. 

°  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  347. 

'  Kate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

'  N.C.H.  vol.  vii.  pp.  401-402,  where  a  pedigree  of  the  Davison  family  will  be  found. 

'  Lanton  Deeds. 



Thomas  Baxter,  of  Lanton,  acquired  lands  in  Coupland  1285  (a)  ;  =  Agnes,  living 
kinsman  of  David  Coupland  (b)  ;  living  1301  (c).  1290  (k). 

David  Baxter  =  Margaret.        David  Baxter,  had  succeeded   his  father   by  1312  (d)  ;  =  Elizabeth    (e)  ; 

known  as  David  of  Lanton  (d)  ;  died  1323  (e).  living  1334  (A). 

Thomas  Baxter  ^  Isabel,  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas     Thomas    Baxter   {'),  =  Joan,  Uving  ^  (')  Robert  Claver- 

Heton,    widow   of   Thomas         aged  14  in  1323  (e). 
Baxter  in  1388  (i). 

1371  (g).  ing,    knight, 


(')  David  Baxter,  died  before  1369  (/).  =  Margaret,  living  1371  {g).  =  (*)  Thomas  Blenkinsop,  married  by  1369(7). 

(a)  De   Banco   Roll,    Xo.    59,    m.    84 — Duke's  (A)  Assize  Roll,  Cumberland,  8  Edw.  III. — Duke's 

Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  68.  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiv.  pp.  1229-1230. 

(6)  Belvoir  Deeds,  Drawer  14.  (i)    Inq.  p.m.   11   Ric.  II.,  No.  31 — Duke's    Tran- 

(c)  Assise  Roll,  28-31  Edw.  I.     Duke's  Transcripts,  scripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  161-162.     Isobel  is 

vol.  xix.  p.  126.  in  the  entail  of  Lowick  and  other  lands  on 

(d)  Belvoir  Deeds,  Drawer  14.  Sir    Alan    Heton   and    her   relationship  to 

(e)  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.  him  is  obvious  though  not  stated. 

(/)   Belvoir  Deeds,  Drawer  21.  (A)  De  Banco  Roll,   No.  84,  m.   68 — Duke's  Tran- 

Q)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  441,  m.  i23do.  scripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  457. 

Descent  of  the  Baxter  portion  of  Lanton.  Sandyhouse. — As 
early  as  1225  there  is  found  an  allusion  to  the  moiety  of  Lanton  held  by 
Thomas  Baskervill,  though  the  county  in  which  this  place  was  situated  is 
not  given. 1  It  may  be  that  this  refers  to  that  portion  of  Lanton  which  by 
the  close  of  the  century  was  held  by  Thomas  Baxter,  who  owned  stock  there 
in  1295,^  and  was  given  licence  by  the  prior  of  Kirkham  to  build  and  maintain 
for  his  life  an  oratory  in  'his  manor  of  Lanton.'^  There  are  numerous 
references  to  the  Baxter  family  as  'of  Lanton'  during  the  later  thirteenth 
and  early  fourteenth  centuries,*  though  the  inquisition  taken  after  the 
death  of  David  Baxter,  son  of  Thomas,  in  1323,  ignores  the  fact  that  he  held 
any  lands  there  other  than  of  the  Strothers.^  It  is  probable  that  the  trouble 
which  arose  in  1362  when  David  Baxter,  grandson  of  the  last  named  David, 
refused  to  attorn  to  Henry  Strother  for  the  lands  he  held  of  him  in  Lanton,® 
was  due  to  the  confusion  arising  from  the  two-fold  nature  of  the  Baxter's 
tenure  in  the  township.  Still  David  ma}'  have  been  trying  to  annex  to  his 
portion  of  the  township  those  lands  which  he  held  of  the  lord,  and  that  he 

*  Rot.  Lit.  Clans,  vol.  ii.  p.  154.  -  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14.     Cf.  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  iv.  p.  73. 
'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

*  The  usual  form  of  the  name  is  'le  pesteur  de  Langeton'  or  'pistor  de  Langeton.' 

'  Cai.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.     Called  David  of  Lanton.      For  identification  with  David  Baxter,  see 
page  226. 

*  See  pages  135-13O. 


was  not  above  taking  the  law  into  his  own  hands,  is  evidenced  by  the  accusa- 
tion brought  against  him  in  1364  of  breaking  the  close  and  house  of  John  Day 
of  Lanton,  assaulting  and  maiming  him  and  carrying  off  his  goods. ^  His 
ownership  of  a  definite  portion  of  the  vill  with  its  own  demesne  and  manor 
house  is  finally  established  by  the  deed  whereby  in  1369  his  widow  Margaret, 
then  wife  of  Thomas  Blenkinsop,  was  assigned  dower  by  Henry  Lilburn, 
who  with  David  of  Lucker,  seems  to  have  been  heir  to  the  Baxter  property. 
This  included  in  Lanton  the  site  of  the  manor  within  which  stood  a  tower 
which  remained  in  Lilburn's  hands,  together  with  a  right  of  approach  to  its 
northern  entrance.  To  Margaret  fell  the  bakehouse,  another  building  in 
which  the  grange  and  the  brewhouse  were  situated,  and  the  eastern  part  of 
the  garden  running  up  to  the  eastern  mud-wall  which  bounded  the  lord's 
grounds,  together  with  an  enclosed  orchard  lying  opposite  to  the  tower. 
As  a  set  off  against  this  a  house  with  23  acres  of  land  called  Dynchonsland, 
three  waste  cottages  at  the  western  end  of  the  village  and  a  toft  and  croft 
to  the  north  of  the  vill  fell  by  lot  to  Henry  Lilburn  and  David  of  Lucker. 
Included  in  the  property  there  were  also  two  tofts  and  100  acres  of  arable 
and  pasture  land,  though  dower  was  assigned  only  in  eight  acres  of  this,^ 
a  plot  known  as  'Lilesland,'  which  may  have  got  its  name  from  having  once 
formed  part  of  the  Lisle  holding  in  the  township.  Lastly  a  plot  of  four  acres 
of  arable  land  completed  the  tale  of  the  estate.^ 

Ultimately  this  property  probably  passed,  like  other  Baxter  holdings 
in  Glendale,  to  the  Manners  of  Etal,  for  in  1402  Robert  Manners  gave  his 
'  fortellet '  of  Lanton  with  all  his  demesne  lands,  tenantry  and  franchises 
there  to  his  son  John  on  the  latter's  marriage.*  Matters  are  complicated 
however  by  the  reappearance  of  the  Lilburns  in  the  person  of  Thomas  Lil- 
burn as  holding  the  vill,  of  which  the  Strothers  were  said  to  hold  a  moiety, 
in  the  records  of  the  feudal  aid  of  1428,^  but  in  1522  Thomas  Manners,  Lord 
Roos  held  Lanton  Tower,^  and  under  his  new  title  of  earl  of  Rutland,  was 
returned  in  1541  as  joint  owner  thereof  with  William  Strother.'^  This 
implies  the  ownership  of  the  whole  Baxter  inheritance  in  the  township,  which 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1364-1307,  p.  71  ;  Rot.  Fin.,  38  Edw.  III.  Grossi  Fines,  m.  1. — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxii.  p. 52. 

^  The  document  is  obscure  and  it  may  imply  that  only  eight  acres  belonged  to  David  Baxter. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  *  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  '■  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  86. 

«  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII,  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  852. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 



probably  passed  from  the  Manners  to  the  Collingwoods.  John  Co^ing^vood 
was  part  owner  of  the  vill  in  1580,1  and  in  1584  he  held  the  tower.^  In  1630 
the  estate  called  Sandyhouse  in  the  north  east  comer  of  the  township 
belonged  to  Henry  Collingwood  of  Etal.  In  that  year  the  latter  conveyed 
two  farmholds  of  the  yearly  rent  of  £3  iis.  and  other  lands  of  the  yearly 
value  of  gs.,  all  in  Lanton,  to  Luke  Colling^vood  of  Lanton,^  who  appears 
among  Northumberland  freeholders  in  1638/  and  in  1663  was  returned  as 
part  owner  of  the  township  with  a  rent  roll  of  ;f40,  which  was  not  very 
much  smaller  than  that  of  the  Strothers.^  He  died  in  1708  and  his  grand- 
son and  heir,  also  named  Luke,^  conveyed  the  property  to  William  Moore 
of  Berwick,  who  in  turn  conveyed  it  three  years  later  to  William  Forster, 
whose  grand-daughter  married  Fenwick  Stow,  when  the  estate  was  settled 
and  afterwards  vested  in  their  son,  William  Stow.  The  latter's  heirs  sold  it 
in  1787  for  £2,600  to  George  Grey  of  West  Ord,  who  in  1791  was  allotted 
84  acres  in  respect  of  Sandyhouse,  when  Lanton  common  was  enclosed,  and 
further  acquired  from  Alexander  Davison  57  acres  of  his  Lanton  estate 
and  the  tithes  of  com,  wool  and  lamb  of  Sandyhouse,  in  exchange  for  part 
of  his  property.'  He  died  that  same  year  leaving  his  'capital  messuage  in 
Langton'  and  his  'lands  in  Sandyhouse'  to  his  second  son  George,^  who 
died  intestate  in  1824,  when  his  property  passed  to  his  elder  brother  John, 
from  whom  in  1825  Sir  William  Davison  bought  Sandyhouse,  containing 
285  acres,  for  £13,500.''  Henceforth  Sandy  house  was  an  integral  part  of 
the  estate  of  Lanton  and  passed  with  it  to  the  Lambtons. 

The  Towers. — There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  there  were  two  towers 
in  Lanton,  one  held  by  the  lord  of  the  manor,  the  other,  and  probably  the 
earlier  one,  belonging  to  the  Baxter  portion  of  the  township.  The  first  we 
hear  of  any  fortified  place  is  in  1369,  when  Henry  Lilburn  assigned  dower  to 
the  widow  of  David  Baxter.  The  deceased  had  held  the  '  site  of  the  manor' 
in  which  a  'fortellet'  was  built, ^  and  this  reappears  in  1402  when  Robert 
Manners  settled  it  in  1402,  on  his  son  John.^*^   In  1415  Henry  Strother  held  'the 

'  Cal.  oj  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  15.  *  Report  of  Commissioners,  1584 — Border  Holds,  p.  73. 

^  Lambert  MS.  ♦  Freeholders  in  Northumberland,  1638-9 — Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  ii.  p.  325. 

*  Rate  Book,  1663— Hodgson,  pt   iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278.    In  1674  and  again  in  1677  Margaret  Collingwood  of 
Lanton  was  registered  as  a  recusant.     Depositions  from  York  Castle,  pp.  207,  277. 

'  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  iv.  p.  227.      '  Lambert  MS  ;   Lanton  Deeds.      «  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  v.  p.  207. 

•'In  Langton  est  quidam  scitus  manerii  quod  fuit  cjusdem  David,  in  quo  constructum  est  fortellettum ' 
— Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 
'"  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 


tower  of  Lanton,'^  and  about  100  years  later  Richard  Strother  by  indenture 
dated  '20th  June  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.',  leased  to  John  Hall  of  Otter- 
burn,  the  'Castel  of  Langton  with  two  nobles  ther,  Ewoolandis,  now  in  the 
tenure  of  the  said  John,  and  Ivescrake,  Milawnaye,  withe  waye  to  the  mille 
and  watter  gaytte  as  it  now  rownith  in  the  olde  course,'  for  190  years  at  a 
yearly  rent  of  4d.-  By  his  will  dated  July  31st,  1595,  John  Hall  left  his 
'  title  in  Langton  bastle '  to  his  son  Thomas  for  life  for  a  yearly  payment  of 
1 2d.,  with  remainder  to  his  son  William,^  and  in  1631  among  the  late  John 
Strother's  property  in  Lanton  there  is  enumerated  '  a  carucate  of  land  called 
Bastile  in  holding  of  John  Hall,  gentleman.'*  The  lease  was  surrendered 
by  William  Hall  of  Otterburn  in  1656.^  The  other  tower  is  mentioned 
in  a  letter  of  1522  from  Lord  Dacre  to  Wolsey,  in  which  the  intention 
is  expressed  of  placing  ten  men  in  wages  under  Ralph  Reveley  in  Lanton 
tower  which  belonged  to  Thomas  Manners,  Lord  Roos.^  The  two  towers 
seem  to  be  merged  into  one  in  1541,  when  the  earl  of  Rutland  appears 
as  joint  owner  with  William  Strother.''  It  had  been  among  those 
defences  cast  down  by  James  IV.  before  the  battle  of  Flodden,^ 
and  had  been  described  by  Leland  as  'a  mine  of  a  towre,'^  but  the 
greater  part  of  the  walls  was  still  standing  and  the  commissioners  of  1541 
estimated  that  it  could  be  restored  for  100  marks. i"  In  1584,  however,  it 
was  still  '  decaied  partly  by  warres  and  by  want  of  reparacion  of  a  long  con- 
tynuance,'  and  its  repair  would  now  cost  £100.  As  to  ownership  it  had  passed 
into  the  hands  of  John  Collingwood,^^  probably  the  owner  of  the  Manners 
portion  of  the  township. i- 

The  Chapel. — Though  so  near  to  Kirknewton,  the  inhabitants  of  Lanton 
had  a  separate  place  of  worship  in  the  middle  ages,  as  we  gather  from  allusion 
to  a  suit  brought  by  them  in  the  courts  christian  against  the  prior  and 
convent  of  Kirkham  with  regard  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  chapel  there. ^^ 
This  seems  to  have  been  a  properly  constituted  chapel  of  ease,  and  the 
dispute  had  reference  doubtless  to  the  obligation  as  to  repairs,  or  possibly 
as  to  its  complete  rebuilding.     It  may  have  taken  the  place  of  the  oratory 

'  'Turris  de  Tuns  de  Langton  in  Glendall.'     List  of  Castles,  1415 — Border  Holds,  p.  17. 
'  Laing  Charters,  p.  82.  ^  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  254.  '  Laing  Charters,  pp.  499-500. 

»  Ibid.  p.  583.  «   Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  852. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34.  »  Ibid. 

»  Leland's  Itinerary,  vol.  v.  p.  66.  "  Survey  of  the  Border,  154 1 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

"  Report  of  Commissioners,  1584 — Border  Holds,  p.  73.      '-  See  page  141.      i^  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 


which  Thomas  Baxter  of  Lanton  got  hcence  to  build  and  maintain  for  his 
Ufe  on  'his  manor  of  Lanton, '^  and  this  may  explain  the  dispute  as  to 


Kirknewton  is  a  little  village  of  some  76  inhabitants.^  clustered  round 
the  church  of  a  very  extensive  parish. 

Descent  of  the  Manor.— It  was  a  member  of  the  barony  of  Roos, 
held  in  chief  by  the  successive  owners  of  Wark,  and  as  in  Lanton,  the  first 
owners  of  the  vill  of  whom  we  hear  belonged  to  the  Corbet  family.  In 
1235  the  prior  of  Kirkham,  when  called  upon  to  justify  his  right  to  certain 
lands  there,  called  to  warrant  William,  son  of  the  earl  of  Dunbar,  and 
Christine  his  wife,  daughter  and  heiress  of  Walter  Corbet,^  who  himself  had 
given  a  rent  of  I2d.  a  year  from  his  mill  in  Newton  in  Glendale  to  the  monks 
of  Fame.*  A  certain  Thomas  Corbet  sued  the  prior  of  Kirkham  in  1286 
with  regard  to  rights  of  common  pasture  in  Newton  in  Glendale, ^  but  his 
exact  place  in  the  family  cannot  be  ascertained,  since  the  propert}' 
descended  in  the  way  described  under  Lanton,  and  in  1290  Walter,  son  and 
heir  of  William  Corbet,  held  the  manor  of  Newton  in  Glendale  of  Robert  Roos 
by  homage  and  service  of  one  knight,  and  was  a  minor  whose  custody  was 
in  dispute  between  the  overlord  and  his  mother  Lorette.^  Thus  the  manor 
was  held  by  the  Corbets,  and  a  considerable  holding  by  Kirkham  priory,' 
and  under  them  in  1296  there  were  eleven  tenants  of  more  or  less  substance, 
the  value  of  their  goods  in  that  year  ranging  from  the  £5  2s.  46..  of  Gilbert 
Little,  the  wealthiest,  to  19s.  4d.  of  Adam,  son  of  Hugh,  the  poorest  of  them.^ 
Walter  Corbet  in  13 15  or  1317  included  in  his  lease  of  Lanton  to  William 
Strother  and  Joan  his  wife  all  his  demesne  lands  in  Newton  in  Glendale 
together  with  herbage  rights,^  and  in  1315  released  all  his  rights  therein  to 

'  'Licencia  aedificandi  oratorium  in  Langton,  in  qua  continetur  quod  prior  et  conventus  de  K.  con- 
cesserunt  Thomae  pistori  de  Langton,  quod  ipse  possit  unum  oratorium  infra  manerium  suum  in  Langton 
crigere  pro  tota  vita  ipsius  Thomae.'     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

^  The  Census  returns  are  :  1801,  55  ;  181 1,  74  ;  1821,  83  ;  1831,  76  ;  1841,  83  ;  1851,  88  ;  1861,  79  ; 
1871,67;    1881,82;    i8yi,68;     1901,67;    1911,76.     The  township  contains  2028-359  acres. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  19  Hen.  IH.  No.  65 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  p.  157. 

*  Raine,  North  Durham,  App.  No.  Dccxiv.  p.  125. 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  14  Edw.  L — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  215,  236. 

"  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  81,  m.  3.  No.  86.  m.  171,  No.  92,  m.  209 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp. 
395.  485-486,  650. 

'  See  page  144.  '  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  99.  '  Laing  Charters,  p.  7. 

144  •       PARISH   OF    KIRKNEWTON. 

them.i  Next  year  he  followed  this  up  by  conveying  to  them  the  whole 
lordship  and  service  of  Sampson  of  Newton  and  of  all  other  free  tenants 
holding  of  him  in  Newton  in  Glendale,  saving  the  service  due  to  Lanton  mill 
and  40s.  rent  owed  by  Sampson  from  his  holding  in  Newton.^  These  grants 
were  registered  in  1320  by  fine,  wherein  the  property  conveyed  was  described 
as  200  acres  of  wood  and  ij  carucates  of  land.^  Other  lands  were  leased 
by  Roger  Corbet,  son  of  Walter  Corbet,  to  the  same  parties  in  1329  and  1330, 
and  it  is  noticeable  that  it  is  here  for  the  first  time  that  we  find  the  name 
Kirknewton  used  instead  of  Newton.  Later,  in  1330,  the  lease  was 
renewed  to  Joan  Strother  after  her  husband's  death.'* 

From  this  time  forward  the  name  of  Corbet  disappears  from  Kirknewton, 
save  that  in  1372  Eleanor,  widow  of  John  Corbet,  quitclaimed  all  her  right 
in  the  holdings  and  rents  which  she  claimed  in  Kirknewton,^  but  though 
the  Strothers  were  the  chief  landowners,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  held  the 
manor,  which  in  the  late  thirteenth  century  was  described  as  belonging 
to  the  canons  of  Kirkham,^  and  in  1353  the  prior  of  Kirkham  leased  the  site 
of  the  manor  of  Kirknewton  to  Henry  Strother  for  ten  years.''  Further,  when 
the  king  laid  claim  to  the  Corbet-Strother  property  in  1360,^  the  portion 
in  Kirknewton  was  described  as  'a  messuage  and  24  acres  of  land  as  well 
as  other  tenements,'  the  messuage  and  land  having  been  acquired  from  one 
Alan  Bourne  and  being  valued  at  3s.  4d.  yearly,  while  the  other  tenements 
had  formerly  belonged  to  the  Corbets  and  were  valued  at  33s.  4d.  yearly.^ 
It  is  probable  that  these  Corbet  tenements  were  held  of  the  manor  of  Lanton: 
at  least  this  is  true  of  the  croft  and  two  acres  of  land  held  by  David  Baxter 
of  the  Strothers  by  homage,  fealty  and  scutage  and  suit  at  the  court  of 
Lanton  every  three  weeks,  and  by  service  of  2od.  annually  and  i|d.  for 
castle  ward,  with  the  added  obligations  of  grinding  all  his  demesne  corn  at 
Lanton  mill  and  of  taking  his  share  in  carrying  mill  stones  to  the  said 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  8  ;  Document  in  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  115. 

^  Laing  Charters,  pp.  8-9.     The  reserved  rent  of  40s.  probably  refers  to  West  Newton.     See  page  153. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  13  Edw.  II.  No.  41 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xii.  p.  65.  An  enquiry  as  to  the  services 
due  from  the  tenants  of  the  manor  was  ordered  in  1328.      De  Banco  Roll,  No.  275,  m.  i93do. 

*  Laing  Charters,  p.  10.  *  Ibid.  p.  17. 

"  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84.      The  document  is  printed  on  page  157  n.  4. 

'  Dodsworth  MS.  45,  fol.  57.  '  See  page  135. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  p.  340  ;  1364-1367,  p.  39  ;  Chancery  Files,  bundle  No.  265 — Bain, 
Cal.  of  Documents,  vo\.iv. -p.  11;  Rot.  Fin.  34  Edw.  III.  Grossi  Fines,  m  19 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxi. 
pp.  460-461. 


mill.i  The  extent  of  this  holding  was  probably  larger  than  these  proceedings 
suggest,  for  when  in  1369  Henry  Lilburn,  who  succeeded  to  it,  allotted  dower 
therein  to  Baxter's  widow,  it  is  described  as  one  waste  toft  called  'le  spitell,' 
twenty  acres  of  arable  land,  four  acres  of  meadow  in  two  places  called  '  le 
spittelland,'  which  in  size  corresponds  exactly  with  the  property  acquired  by 
the  Strothers  from  Alan  Bourne. ^ 

Some  time  during  the  latter  half  of  the  fourteenth  century,  the  Strothers 
seem  to  have  taken  up  their  abode  at  Kirknewton,  for  in  1365  letters  of 
attorney,  relating  to  lands  in  another  part  of  the  county,  are  dated  by  Henry 
Strother  there,^  and  the  same  is  true  of  a  charter  of  1388,  whereby  Robert 
Manners  granted  to  Thomas  Strother  and  Matilda  his  wife  'his  carucate  of 
land  in  Kirknewtoun  meadows,  arable  land,  pasture  and  woods,  except  the 
wood  of  Ruttok.4  Further,  in  1420,  Henry  Strother,  brother  of  the  last 
named  Thomas,  gave  evidence  that  his  father  had  begotten  an  illegitimate 
son  in  Newton, ^  which  presupposes  residence  there.  In  1428  another  Thomas 
Strother  held  '  the  vill  of  Newton '  of  the  barony  of  Wark,«  and  he  appears 
again  as  lord  of  Newton  in  1448,'  but  from  that  time  till  1516  no  record  of 
the  family  survives.  In  that  latter  year  one  Thomas  Strother  settled  the 
manors  of  Kirknewton,  West  Newton  and  Lanton  on  himself  and  his  heirs 
male,  and  in  default  successively  on  William  Strother,  'abiding  at  St.  Albans,' 
Richard  Strother  of  Duddoe  in  Northumberland,  Roger  Strother  of  Alnwick, 
Henry  Strother  of  Bothal,  county  Northumberland,  Oswin  Strother,  Thomas,' 
Roger,  and  Edmund  Strother  his  illegitimate  sons,  John  Strother  one  of  the 
sons  of  John  Strother,  late  of  Milfield,  and  then  successively  on  Cuthbert, 
Edward  and  Christopher,  the  other  sons  of  John  Strother  of  Milfield,  with 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  413,  m.  73 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xxv.  pp.  135-142. 

»  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  Since  in  Lanton  Baxter  held  land  which  had  formerly  been  in  the  tenure 
of  the  Lis  e  family,  it  may  be  that  this  Kirknewton  holding  was  that  held  in  1358  by  Robert  Lisle  son  and 
heir  of  John  Lisle  of  Woodburn,  Cal.  of  Palertf  Rolls,  1358-1361.  PP.  135-136.  Or,^,«a/,a-Hodgson,  pt.  iii. 
vol  11.  p  324  ;  liot  Fm^  32  Edw.  III.  m.  8— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxi.  p.  437.  The  Lisles  held  Newton 
Hall  and  this  was  often  described  as  East  Newton  {N.C.H.  vol.  vi.  p.  122),  a  title  here  ascribed  to  the  propertv 
but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Lisles  held  land  in  Lanton  so  that  it  is  quite  possible  that  Kirknewtcin 
IS  here  indicated. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  16. 

,Tu-j*  ^^''^'  Pp-  ^';-^-  ^^^  '^'°°'^  °^  Ruttok  at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  centurj-  belonged  to  the  Corbets 
(Ibid.  pp.  3-4);  and  was  granted  in  1348  by  Wilham,  son  of  Sampson  of  West  Newton,  to  John  Coupland  and 
Joan  his  wife  {Ibid.  p.  1 2),  who  must  have  aUenated  it  to  the  Manners.  It  was  probably  still  in  the  possession 
of  the  Manners  family  in  1542,  when  the  first  earl  of  Rutland  mentioned  the  possession  of  lands  in  East 
Newton.  Northumberland,  in  his  will.  North  Country  IfiHs,  vol.  i.  p.  187.  This  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
surrendered  to  the  crown  with  the  rest  of  the  Northumberland  property  of  the  Manners. 

'  York  Memorandum  Book,  vol.  ii.  pp.  1 13-1 14.       «  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  86.      '  Laing  Charters  p  33 
Vol.   XI.  ,^ 


remainder  over  to  Thomas  Strother's  direct  heirs. ^  The  estate  passed  to 
Richard  Strother  of  Duddoe,^  and  the  latter's  son,  Wilham  Strother,  in  1535, 
having  provided  for  his  own  hfe  interest,  settled  his  manor  of  East  Newton 
and  all  other  lands,  tenements,  &c.,  which  he  had  in  the  towns,  territories 
and  fields  of  East  Newton,  West  Newton,  Lanton,  and  Moneylaws  on  his  son 
William  in  view  of  his  forthcoming  marriage  to  Agnes,  daughter  of  Thomas 
Grey  of  Adderstone.^  Thus  in  1535  the  manor  of  Kirknewton  belonged  to 
the  Strothers,  and  so,  if  it  ever  belonged  to  Kirkham  priory,  it  had  become 
Strother  property  before  the  dissolution  of  the  house.  William  Strother,  the 
elder,  probably  lived  for  some  years  after  this,  and  was  the  William  Strother 
of  Newton  who  was  summoned  with  five  men  for  a  raid  in  Tyndale  in  1538,^ 
and  the  man  similarly  described  who  benefitted  under  the  will  of  Sir  Roger 
Grey  of  Horton  in  1540.^  In  1541  the  town  of  East  Newton  was  'of  the 
inheritance  of  William  Strouther,  and  he  hath  there  two  husband  lands  which 
he  occupyeth  as  his  demayne  with  his  owne  plowes,'^  and  this  man  appears 
as  'William  Strother  the  elder  of  Newton'  in  1549.'  O^  ^^e  other  hand  it 
was  doubtless  his  son,  William  Strother  of  Newton,  who  is  mentioned  as 
son-in-law  of  John  Selby,  gentleman  porter  of  Berwick,  in  the  latter's  will 
dated  February  27th,  1565,^  and  the  man  of  the  same  name  whose  cattle 
were  stolen  in  1567.^  The  very  next  year  Roger  Strother  was  recorded  as 
holding  lands  in  Lanton,  Howtel,  East  and  West  Newton  and  Moneylaws,^" 
but  this  must  be  a  mistake,  as  in  1570  there  is  reference  to  '  William  Strother, 
the  lord  of  Newton  in  Glendale,'^^  and  in  1579  this  William  settled  all  his 
properties  of  Kirknewton,  West  Newton,  Lanton,  Kilham,  Howtel,  Paston, 
Shotton  and  other  places  in  tail  male  successively  on  his  sons,  Lancelot, 
William,  Thomas,  Clement  and  Lionel,  on  Robert,  son  of  the  late  John 
Strother,  and  finally  on  the  elder  William's  brothers,  Clement  Strother  of 

'  Laing  Charleys,  p.  79.  Richard  Strother  is  described  as  of  Dudden  in  Northumberland.  T)iis  must 
be  Duddoe  in  Stannington,  as  Duddo  is  in  North  Durham. 

*  See  undated  lease  of  Lanton  Tower,  page  142.  '  Laing  Charters,  pp.  104-105. 

■'  Letters  and  Papers  0/  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  xiii.  pt.  ii.  p.  140.  '  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  115. 

"  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  33.  '  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  39. 

'  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  235.  The  visitation  of  1615  gives  his  wife  as  Jane,  daughter  of  John 
Selby  of  Twisell  (Foster,  Visitations,  p.  115),  and  this  John  was  porter  of  Berwick  (Raine,  North  Durham, 
P-  315). 

"  Cat.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1566-1568,  p.  279. 

"  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  ill.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixix.      He  is  said  to  hold  in  capile  which  is  certainly 
a  mistake. 

"  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  334. 


Duddoe  and  Thomas  Strother  of  Canno  Mill.^  In  view  of  this  entail  it  is  the 
more  surprising  to  find  one  Harry  Strother  in  his  will,  dated  1582,  releasing 
a  debt  owed  to  him  by  '  the  yonge  lord  of  Newton,  Mr.  John  Strowther/^  and 
a  'John  Strowther  of  Newton'  indicted  in  1586  for  the  murder  of  William 
Clavering.  The  last  named  had  been  slain  in  an  affray  between  William 
Selby  and  Sir  Cuthbert  Collingwood,  the  former's  company  having  included 
among  others,  'one  Strowther  and  his  son,'  one  of  whom  according  to  another 
account  of  the  incident  was  Clement  Strother,  probably  the  man  of  that 
name  who  appears  in  the  entail  of  1579.^  At  any  rate  John  Strother,  whether 
father  or  son  as  mentioned  above,  was  acquitted,  though  his  enemies  said 
that  this  was  due  to  the  partiality  of  the  jury.*  Possibly  the  father 
'Strowther'  was  Lancelot  Strother  of  the  entail  of  1579,  since  a  Lancelot 
Strother  of  Kirknewton  is  mentioned  in  1589  as  holding  a  mortgage  on  the 
town,  tower  and  demesne  of  Fowbery,  then  the  property  of  Roger  Fowbery,^ 
and  it  was  this  same  Lancelot  who  in  1591  is  described  as  son  and  heir  of 
William  Strother  in  a  case  brought  against  him  by  Clement  and  Henry 
Strother  with  regard  to  the  rents  of  the  manor  of  Fowbery.^  The  matter 
is  made  more  definite  by  an  inquisition  taken  on  the  death  of  John  Strother 
in  1631.  He  was  the  son  of  Lancelot  Strother  and  the  grandson  of  William 
Strother,  and  held,  among  other  things,  the  rectory  of  Kirknewton  and  a  capital 
messuage  and  two  carucates  of  land  there,  to  which  his  son  William,  aged  5, 
was  heir.'^  As  the  deceased  had  held  certain  lands  in  chief,  the  wardship 
of  the  heir  fell  to  the  king,  who  gave  the  custody  of  all  the  lands  to  the 
widow,    Elizabeth,    during   her   son's   minority.^     An   allusion    to   \\'illiam 

'  Laing  Charters,  pp.  244,  245,  246.     Cf.  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  41. 

-  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  73.  ^  gee  also  page  137. 

••  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1580-1625,  pp.  193,  195,  196. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  292.     He  appears  again  in  1592.     (Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  723.) 

*  Laing  Charters,  p.  300. 

'  Inq.  p.m. — Laing  Charters,  pp.  499-500.  .A,  William  Strother  of  Xewton  in  Glendale  is  mentioned  in 
1608  {Laing  Charters,  p,  371),  and  William  Strother  of  Kirknewton  had  a  grey  horse  and  a  mare  stolen  from  him 
in  1595-  {Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  165.)  This  was  the  William  Strother  of  the  entail  of  1579  doubtless 
as  he  did  not  make  his  will  till  1612.  (Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  27.)  His  son  Lancelot,  who  made  his  will 
in  161 1  (Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  45),  was  probably  resident  at  Kirknewton  and  in  charge  of  the  property  during  the  latter 
part  of  his  father's  life.  It  was  Lancelot  who  having  taken  a  mortgage  on  Fowber>'  in  15S9,  had  become 
owner  thereof  by  1600.  (Laing  Charters,  pp.  292,  342.)  By  his  will  he  left  his  household  stuff  both  at  Xewton 
and  at  Fowbery  to  his  wife.  (Raine,  Tsetamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  45)  so  he  evidently  had  establishments  at  both  places. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  501.  These  lands  are  described  as  '  i  messuage  and  divers  parcels  of  land  containing 
6  acres  of  pasture  and  100  acres  of  moor  called  the  Tarleazes,  the  back  or  the  north  side  of  Bentlie  Shanke 
and  Ray  Strother  to  the  head  of  Wakerich  within  the  forest  of  Cheviot  and  formerly  parcel  of  that  forest.' 
(Ibid.  p.  499.)  This  evidently  refers  to  Torleehouse  and  the  land  running  up  to  Wackerage  Cairn,  which  all 
hes  in  the  township  of  Kirknewton. 


Strother,  the  elder,  of  Newton  in  1644^  probably  refers  to  the  uncle  of  the  lord 
of  Newton,-  but  it  must  have  been  the  son  of  John  Strother  who,  as  William 
Strother  of  Kirknewton,  compounded  for  delinquency  in  1649.  His  demesne 
and  tithe  in  the  township  were  valued  at  £90,  and  the  fine  of  a  sixth  on  his 
whole  estate,  after  making  certain  deductions,  amounted  to  £1,095  los.^  At 
the  same  time  one  James  Swinhoe  of  Chatton  compounded  for  a  tenement 
and  lands  in  the  township  of  the  yearly  value  before  the  war  of  £2.*  In  1653 
William  Strother  suffered  a  recovery  of  the  manors  of  Kirknewton,  West 
Newton  and  Lanton  for  the  purpose  of  settling  his  estates  on  his  marriage 
with  Jane  Shaftoe,^  and  ten  years  later  his  rent  roll  in  Kirknewton  was  £120.^ 
In  1675  he  once  more  settled  his  estates  on  the  marriage  of  his  eldest 
son,  William,  to  Margaret  Delaval,  on  them  in  tail  male  with  successive 
remainders  to  his  heirs  male  and  his  heirs  general.  As  the  only  son  of 
William  and  Margaret  died  young,  the  property  was  re-entailed  in  1684 
on  the  former's  brothers  successively  in  tail  male.  The  father  died 
in  1701,  and  so  by  1705  had  all  his  sons,  with  the  exception  of 
William,  Mark  and  Robert.  At  that  date  the  two  latter  agreed  to 
join^the  former  in  mortgaging  the  property  for  £1,900,  borrowed  to  provide 
a  portion  for  William's  daughter  Mary  on  her  marriage  to  Walter  Ker  of 
Littleton.  Under  this  agreement  the  estate  passed  to  Mark  Strother  on  the 
death  of  his  elder  brother,  with  reversion  to  his  brother  Robert,  who  was 
also  without  issue,"  and  then  to  Mary  and  her  husband  Walter  Ker.  Mark 
died  in  1726,  Robert  having  predeceased  him,  and  the  whole  estate  thus  went 
to  John  Strother  Ker,  son  and  heir  of  Mary  and  Walter  Ker.^  In  1761  the 
farm  of  Kirknewton,  comprising  1,871  acres  and  rented  at  £170  a  year,  was 
advertised  for  sale,^  and  in  the  following  year  found  a  purchaser  in  Thomas 
James  of  Stamford,  who  in  1768  bequeathed  it  to  his  sons,  William  James 
and  CoUingwood  Forster  James. 

'  Walerjord  Documents,  voi.  i.  p.  i8.  -  See  note  7  on  page  147. 

'  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  347.  ^  Ibid.  p.  353. 

'  Laing  Charters,  pp.  571,  572 ;    Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  292,  No.  49. 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

'  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  372,  No.  55. 

'  Mr.  Thompson's  Kirknewton  Deeds.  By  his  will  dated  4th  October,  1723,  Mark  Strother  of  Fovvbery, 
left  all  his  estate,  real  and  personal,  to  his  widow,  Martha,  to  dispose  of  as  she  would.  (Kaine,  Teslamenla, 
vol.  V.  p.  29.) 

9  Newcastle  Journal,  26th  December,  1761 — Newcastle  Society  of  .\ntiquaries  Proceedings,  3rd  series, 
vol.  vi.  p.  274. 




Thom.^s  James  of  Stamford,  parish  of  Embleton,  purchased  Kirknewton  25th  December,  =  Anne,   buried 

1762.  from  John  Strother  Ker  (a) 
1768  (a). 

buried  24th  May,  1769  (6)  ;  will  dated  24th  March, 

24th  March, 
1760  (6). 

Thomas  James  of  Kirk- 
newton was  residing  at 
Stamford  in  1774  when 
he  voted  at  the  election 
of  knights  of  the  shire  ; 
buried  i6th  August, 
1796(6,  c):  aged67(/); 
will  dated  22nd  Decem- 
ber, 1789  (a). 

Elizabeth,       sister       of  William 

Robert   Thompson   of  James, 

Barmoor  ;    married  at  party  to 

Holy  Island  7th  April,  release 

1768;    a   most    agree-  29th  June, 

able  young  lady  with  1769  (o). 
a    handsome    fortune 
{g}  ;  buried  13th  May, 
1812,  aged  66  (6). 

Anne,  party  to  release  20th  June, 
1769  (o)  ;  died  at  Alnwick,  un- 
married, aged  78  ;  buried  loth 
October,  181 2  (6). 

Isabella,  party  to  release,  29th 
June,  1769  (a) 

Mary,  party  to  release,  3rd  Janu- 
ary, 1771  (a). 




William  James  of  Kirknew- 

CoUingwood   Forster  James  = 



ton,      and      of      Holbom 

of  Kirknewton, baptised  8th 



Grange,  bapt.   19th  May, 

September,    1775    (6)  ;     to 



1773    (*) ;     to    whom    his 

whom    his    father   gave  a 



father   gave  a  moiety  of 

moiety     of      Kirknewton  ; 


1772  (i); 

Kirknewton ;      died    un- 

voted  at   the    election   of 



married     6th    December, 

knights    ot    the    shire,    in 

1 8th 


T826,    aged   53    (d)  ;    ^viU 

1826    and     1841  ;      buried 



dated   i6th  Nov.,  182.... ; 

7th  December,   1852,  aged 



proved  1827  (a). 


M  a  r  y, 
of   Thomas 
married    at 
I  I  t  h 
Marc  h, 
1814  (A). 

Thomas  James,  son 
and  heir,  bap- 
tised 14th  August, 
1814  {d)  ;  died 
when  at  school  at 
Belford  ;  buried 
25th  December, 
1822  {d). 

Ehzabeth,  daughter  and  sole 
heir,  born  13th  October, 
18 1 5  {d)  ;  married  her 
cousin,  Alexander  Thompson, 
jure  uxoris,  of  Kirknewton, 
son  of  Thomas  Thompson  of 
Norham  ;  died  7th  August, 
1892  (e).^ 

(a)  Kirknewton  Deeds. 

(6)  Embleton  Register. 

(c)  Monumental  Inscriptions,  Embleton. 

(d)  Kirknewton  Register. 

(e)  Monumental  Inscriptions,  Kirknewton. 

Elizabeth,  baptised  i6th  November,  1770  (6)  ; 
married  nth  June,  1796  (6),  to  Robert 
Thompson  of  Fenham  Hill  in  Islandshire ; 
she  and  her  children  took  a  portion  of  Kirk- 
newton under  the  will  of  her  brother 
Wilham  (a). 

Anne,  baptised  26th  November,  1777  (I)  ;  buried 
17th  July,  1781  (6). 

(/)   Six  North   Country  Diaries,   Surtees   Soc. 

No.  124  p.  321. 
(g)  Newcastle  Courant,  23rd  April,  1768. 
(A)  Newcastle  Courant,  26th  March,  1814. 

The  William  James  moiety  passed  under  his  will  in  1822  to  his  nephews, 
Thomas  James  Thompson  and  Robert  Thompson,  and  by  reason  of  the 
death  intestate  of  Thomas  James  Thompson  and  the  subsequent  death  of  his 
only  son,  a  minor,  the  Thomas  James  Thompson  share  of  that  moiety  also 
devolved  upon  Robert  Thompson.  In  1852,  the  property  was  partitioned 
between  CoUingwood  Forster  James  and  Robert  Thompson,  the  former 
getting  what  may  be  called  the  western  side  and  the  latter  the  eastern  side. 
The  CoUingwood  Forster  James's  part  passed  under  his  will  in  1845  to  his 
daughter  Elizabeth,  who  married  her  cousin  Alexander  Thompson,  and 
from  her  to  her  son,  CoUingwood  Forster  James  Thompson.  In  1859,  the 
Robert  Thompson  part,  known  as  Newton  Tors,  was  sold  by  him  to  Henr}- 


Thomas  Morton,  who,  in  1875,  sold  it  to  the  earl  of  Durham.^  The  latter 
bequeathed  it  to  his  second  son,  the  Hon.  F.  W.  Lambton,  with  the  exception 
of  a  portion  of  the  property  containing  223  acres  and  extending  to  the  river 
Glen,  which  was  not  included  in  the  sale  of  1875,  and  is  now  the  property 
of  Captain  Claud  Lambton,  second  son  of  the  Hon.  F.  W.  Lambton.  Newton 
Tors  was  sold  back  again  to  Mr.  Morton  in  1884,  and  on  the  latter's  death 
in  i8g8  passed  under  his  will  with  Yeavering  to  Mr.  Thomas  Knight  Culley.^ 

The  Tower  and  Border  Raids. — Kirknewton  appears  as  the  site  of 
a  tower  as  early  as  1415,^  but  it  is  not  again  mentioned  till  the  sixteenth 
century,  when  the  normal  troubled  state  of  the  border  became  accentuated. 
In  1516  we  have  the  first  instance  of  a  raid,  when  '  eight  score  horsemen  robbed 
the  town  of  Newton  of  seven  score  kye  and  the  insight.'*  The  tower  was  of 
sufficient  importance  to  be  noted  by  Leland  a  few  years  later,^  but  by  1541 
the  commissioners  on  border  defences  reported  '  there  ys  a  lytle  towre  and 
a  stone  house  joyned  to  the  same,  the  walls  of  which  stone  house  ys  so  lowe 
that  in  the  last  warres  the  Scotts  wanne  the  said  stone  house  and  sett  fyer 
on  yt  and  had  thereby  allmost  brunte  the  tower  and  all.'  They  therefore 
recommended  that  the  walls  of  the  stone  house  should  be  raised,  and  that 
it  should  be  fortified  for  defence  against  'common  skrymyshes.'^  In  1547 
seven  or  eight  Scots  of  Teviotdale  stole  seven  horses  from  the  township, 
and  though  pursued  into  Scotland,  managed  to  get  away  with  their  booty  ;' 
in  1567  a  body  of  200  men  took  400  head  of  cattle  and  300  sheep  besides 
making  certain  prisoners.^  More  serious  still  was  the  damage  done  in  1570 
by  the  Scots,  aided  by  the  earl  of  Westmorland  and  other  English  rebels 
who  had  fled  to  Scotland  after  the  failure  of  their  rising  in  the  previous 
year.  To  the  number  of  2,000  horse  they  fell  upon  Mindrum,  and  thence 
passed  to  Kirknewton,  where  they  seized  400  head  of  cattle,  besides  horses, 
mares  and  household  stuff,  and  more  than  200  prisoners,  '  besides  the  hurting 
of  divers  women  and  the  throwing  of  sucking  children  out  of  their  clouts.'^ 
Kirknewton  indeed  was  particularly  exposed  to  these  raids,  since  it  lay  in 
the  valley  by  which  the  Scots  secured  their  easiest  entry  into  Glendale  by 
way  of  Mindrum  and  Paston.     This  perhaps  also  explained  its  choice  for  a 

'  Mr.  Thompson's  Kirknewton  Deeds.  -  Newton  Tors  Deeds. 

'  List  of  Castles,  1415 — Border  Holds,  p.  ig.  ■•  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.,  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  469. 

'  Leland,  Itinerary,  vol.  v.  p.  66.  "  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  pp.  32-33- 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1547-1565,  p.  32J. 

^  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Foreign,  1566-1568,  p.  279.  '  Ibid.  1569-1571,  pp.  185-186. 


meeting  of  the  English  and  Scottish  Wardens  for  the  settlement  of  mutual 
grievances  in  1586,  a  meeting,  however,  which  never  took  place,  being  post- 
poned from  time  to  time  by  the  laird  of  Cessford.who  having  at  last  exhausted 
his  inventive  powers,  fell  back  on  the  weather  as  a  good  excuse  for  not 
keeping  his  appointment.^  However,  in  January,  1594,  a  day  of  truce  was 
actually  held  at  Kirknewton,  with  mutually  satisfactory  results. ^ 

The  tower  still  stood  in  1584,^  but  the  last  we  hear  of  raids  in  the  township 
is  in  1602,  and  then  it  was  a  false  alarm.  The  laird  of  Newton  on  that 
occasion  broke  up  a  meeting,  which  was  promising  to  settle  many  difficulties 
between  Scots  and  English,  by  coming  '  with  an  outcry  that  100  Scots  were 
running  a  foray  on  his  town  and  had  toke  9  or  10  score  cattle,'  but  when 
both  Scots  and  English  had  abandoned  the  conference  to  repress  these 
freebooters,  they  found  that  'there  was  no  such  matter,'  and  that  the 
Strothers  'had  lost  nothing,  nor  seen  anybody.''* 

The  Hospital. — There  are  some  early  and  indefinite  allusions  to  an 
almshouse  for  old  men  at  Kirknewton.  Some  time  about  the  fifties  or  sixties 
of  the  thirteenth  century  Nicholas  Corbet  confirmed  a  gift,  made  by  his  father 
to  Simon  of  Howtel  and  his  wife  for  their  lives,  of  '  the  hospital  in  Newton 
in  Glendalle,  with  a  half  carucate  of  land  belonging  to  the  said  hospital, 
to  be  held  to  the  said  Simon  and  his  wife  as  freely  as  Walter  Corbet,  the 
original  grantor  of  that  alms,  first  gave  and  granted  it.'^  Evidently  Walter 
Corbet,  grandfather  of  Nicholas,  was  the  original  founder,  and  it  would 
seem  that  the  care  of  the  institution  was  thus  confided  to  Simon  of  Howtel. 
Patrick  Corbet  some  time  later,  having  succeeded  to  the  property  of  his 
brother  Nicholas,  granted  to  Thomas  Baxter  of  Lanton  in  Glendale  '  a  half 
carucate  of  lands  in  tofts  and  meadows  as  well  as  arable  lands,  belonging  to 
the  hospital  of  Great  Newton  in  Glendale  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  three 
poor  men  of  Christ  in  that  hospital  in  reasonable  food  and  clothing  at  the 
sight  of  faithful  men,  and  if  the  three  poor  men  will  not  labour,  or  do  to  the 
best  of  their  power  or  degree  of  infirmity  what  is  commanded  them,  they 
shall  at  the  will  of  the  grantor  be  expelled  from  the  hospital  and  other  three 
men  substituted.'      This  half  carucate  was  to  be  held  freely  to  the  grantee, 

1  Cal  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  240,  241.  246.  =  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1580-1625,  p.  344. 

'  Dacre's  Plat  of  Castles,  6-c.— Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79.  *  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  797. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  3. 


reserving  to  the  grantor  and  his  heirs  the  wood  Ruttok,  which  Thomas 
Baxter  and  his  heirs  were  not  to  cut  and  use  without  leave,  but  they  were  to 
be  rumfree  and  quit  of  all  multure  for  the  grain  of  the  hospital  at  Lanton 
mill.^  It  was  these  lands  doubtless  in  which  in  1369  David  Baxter's  widow 
was  given  dower  under  the  description  of  one  waste  toft  called  '  le  spitall ' 
and  20  acres  of  arable  land  and  four  acres  of  meadow  in  two  places  called 
'  le  spitalland '  both  in  Kirknewton  formerly  the  property  of  her  late  husband. - 
From  this  it  would  seem  that  the  land  was  held  by  the  Baxters  in  fee  simple, 
but  that  it  was  burdened  with  the  obligation  of  keeping  the  three  old  men, 
who  in  turn  were  bound  to  work  to  the  best  of  their  ability  for  the  owner. 


Descent  of  the  Manor. — West  Newton,^  as  a  member  of  the  barony 
of  Roos,  was  held  in  capite  by  the  successive  holders  of  that  barony,  who 
claimed  infangenthef  therein.*  It  was  probably  at  one  time  part  of  Kirk- 
newton township,  and  in  early  charters  the  term  Newton  is  used  indis- 
criminately for  both.  The  first  sub-tenant  of  whom  we  hear  is  William 
Corbet,  who  in  1288  sued  Robert  Roos  of  Wark  for  entering  by  force  his 
wood  at  West  Newton  in  Glendale  and  there  cutting  down  and  carrying 
off  his  trees  to  the  value  of  £20.^  Not  Robert  Roos,  but  one  Adam  Collwell 
seems  to  have  been  his  immediate  lord,  and  when  Walter  Corbet,  son  of 
William,  conveyed  to  William  Strother  and  Joan  his  wife  the  annual  rent 
of  40S.  owed  to  Sampson  of  Newton  for  the  moiety  of  the  town  of  West 
Newton  in  Glendale,  the  Strothers  became  sub-tenants  first  of  Adam  Collwell 
and  later  of  his  son  John."  In  1322  Adam  Collwell's  widow,  Ellen,  quit- 
claimed all  right  she  had  in  this  rent  to  William  and  Joan,''  and  in  1334  her 
son  John  did  likewise  in  favour  of  Joan,  who  was  then  a  widow. ^     William, 

'  Laing  Charters,  pp.  3-4.  2  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 

'  The  Census  returns  are  :    1801,  60  ;    1811,  68  ;    1821,  95  ;    1831,  86  ;    1841,  83  ;    1851,  91  ;    1861,  95  ; 
1871,72;    1881,56;    1891,48;    1901,74;    1911,64.     The  township  comprises  1118-475  acres. 

*  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  390-391. 

^  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  73,  m.  74do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  326-327. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  11. 

'  Ibid.  pp.  9-10.     Colewell  seems  to  have  been  the  name  of  a  portion  of  WestNcwton,  as  it  is  mentioned 
separately  in  a  document  of  1328.     De  Banco  Roll,  No.  275,  m.  i93do. 

*  Laing  Charters,  p.  11. 


1.  Seal  of  Joan,  widow  of  John  Coupland,  6  Jan.,  37  Edw.  III.  (1363/4).       Armorial,  a 

cross  charged  with  a  molet,  impaling  on  a  bend  sinister  three  spread  eagles. 

s'  iobannc  •  be  •  ton[glait]& 

—Pub.  Rei.  Off.,  LS.  130. 

2.  Seal  of  Joan,  widow  of  John  Coupland,  20  Oct.,  40  Edw.  III.  (1366).     Armorial,  a  cross 

charged  with  a  motet  impaling  on  11  bend  three  spread  eagles. 

ffl  SigUbm  ffi  jobiimu  ffl  be  ©  (ffonphinb 

—Pub.  Rcc.  Off.,  RS.  89. 

3.  Seal  of  Joan,  widow  of  John  Coupland,  6  Feb.,  44  Edw.  III.  (1369/70)-     Armorial,  a 

ffeur  de  lys  reversed  issuing  out  oj  a  leopard's  head  reversed. 

*  S'lOHANNE  VR.  .  .  .  RE  DE   COVPLAND 

—Pub.  Rec.  Off.,  BS.  379. 

4.  Seal  of  John  Coupland,  20  Oct.,  21  Edw.  III.  (1347).      Armorial,  a  cross  charged  with 

a  molet,  crest  a  rum's  head. 


—Pub.  Rec.  Off.,  RS.  67. 

5.  Seal  of  John  Coupland,  20  March,  10  Edw.  III.  (1335/6).     Armorial,  on  a  cross  a  voided 

lozenge  charged  with  a  lion  rampant  in  a  border  engrailed. 

."  .  S D  .  .  .  . 

—Pub.  Rec.  Off.,  WS.  228. 

6.  Seal  of  John  Coupland,  a.D.  1357.     Armorial,  a  cross  charged  with  a  molet,  crest  a  ram's 


s  :  m  .  .  .  .  :  b'  :  tonplanb  : 

— Pub.  Rec.  Off.,  Exchequer  K.R.  Accounts  73/2   No.   I. 

7.  Seal   of  William    Strother,    a.D.    1359.      Armorial,   on   a    bend   three  spread   eagles,  a 

border  engrailed,  crest  a  bird's  (?  turkey's)  head. 

S  •  WILLELMI  :  D  .  .  .  ;  .  STROTHIE  : 

—Pub.  Rec.  Off.,  Ancient  Deeds  A6148. 

8.  Seal  of  Robert  Maners  (a.D.  1347),  styled  sheriff  of  Norham.      Armorial,  two  bars  and 

a  chief. 

>i<  S  •  ROBERTI  ■  DE  •  MANERS 

— Durh.  Treas.,  3''"  i"''"'  Specialia  41. 

9.  Seal    of    Thomas    Grey    (a.D.    1346).      Equestrian,    the   shield    and   horse    trappings 

charged  with  a  lion  rampant  in  an  engrailed  border,  crest  a  ram's  head. 
►^   LE  :  «   :  SEEL  THOMAS  :  GRAY  •  CHEVALIER 

— Durh.  Treas.,  3"^'"  i4"'^«  Specialia  17. 

10.     Seal  of  Thomas  Grey  (A.D.  1407),  styled  Thomas  Grey  of  Heton,  knight,  lord  of  Werlc. 
Armorial,  m  a  border  engrailed  a  lion  rampant,  crest  a  ram's  head. 

sigiilum  tijomr  grag 

— Durh.  Treas.,  Misc.  Chart.,  3785. 





son  of  Sampson,  seems  to  have  tried  to  evade  his  obHgations,  for  in  that 
very  year  Joan  had  to  sue  him  for  40s.  rent  for  the  tenements  which  he  held 
of  her.i  In  1348  Wilham  conveyed  to  John  Coupland  and  Joan  his  wife  the 
lands,  &c.,  which  he  held  in  the  town  and  territory  of  West  Newton,  with 
his  wood  of  Ruttok,  and  with  the  half  of  the  lordship  of  the  whole  town  above 
named.-  When  in  1365  a  fine  was  levied  on  Joan  Coupland's  property, 
this  holding  was  described  as  '  the  third  part  of  the  manor  of  Westemewton 
in  Glendale.'^  What  became  of  the  property  after  this  we  cannot  tell,  but 
it  probably  reverted  to  the  immediate  lord,  and  thus  the  Strothers  would 
hold  half  the  manor. 

Meanwhile  the  Strother  family  had  acquired  other  lands  in  the  township. 
In  1329  Roger  Corbet,  son  of  Walter  Corbet,  leased  all  his  lands,  both  those 
in  demesne  and  those  held  of  him  by  service,  in  West  Newton,  saving  six 
husband  lands  there,  to  William  and  Joan  Strother,  and  in  the  following 
year  he  converted  this  into  a  grant  of  all  his  rights  therein.  Further  he 
gave  a  lease  to  them  of  all  the  lands  in  the  township  falling  to  him  on  the 
death  of  his  mother,  and  on  William  Strother's  death  that  year  confirmed 
this  lease  to  Joan.*  It  was  these  lands  doubtless  that  were  conveyed  by 
Roger  Corbet  to  Henry  Strother,  son  and  heir  of  William  and  Joan  Strother, 
in  return  for  an  annual  rent  of  lOOs.,  an  arrangement  confirmed  in  1379, 
when  Henry  attorned  to  Robert  Rea  and  Elizabeth  his  wife,  daughter  and  heir 
of  John,  son  and  heir  of  Roger  Corbet.^  In  1387  the  property  thus  acquired 
from  Roger  Corbet  was  conveyed  to  trustees  by  Sir  Thomas  Strother,  grand- 
son of  Henry  Strother,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  it  on  himself  and  his 
wife  Matilda  and  the  lawful  heirs  of  their  bodies,  whom  failing  it  was  to  pass 
to  the  heirs  of  Thomas.^  The  property  is  here  described  as  'the  moiety  of 
the  town  of  Westernewton,  formerly  belonging  to  Roger  Corbet,'  so  it  is 
evident  that  now  the  Strothers  owned  both  moieties,  and  the  same  Sir 
Thomas  Strother  bought  out  the  Corbet  right  to  the  annual  rent  of  loos., 
which  was  quitclaimed  to  him  in  September,  1387,  by  John  Caretoun  of 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne  and  Elizabeth  his  wife." 

'  Assize  Roll,  Cumberland,  8  Edw.  III. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  1231.     -  Laing  Charters,  p.  12. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.xix.  pp.  274-276. 

*  Laing  Charters,  p.  10.  '  Ibid.  p.  18.  '  Ibid.  p.  21. 

'  Laing  Charters,  p.  21.     This  must  have  been  EUzabeth  Corbet,  and  John  Caretoun  must  have  been 
her  second  husband. 

Vol.   XI.  20 


Thus  the  whole  manor  or  township  of  West  Newton  was  Strother 
property  by  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century, ^  and  we  do  not  hear  of  it 
again  till  the  sixteenth  century.  Throughout  that  century  it  belonged  to  the 
Strothers  of  Kirknewton.^  In  1541  it  was  said  to  consist  of  twelve  husband- 
lands  'replenished'  since  Flodden  Field  and  now  quite  flourishing,  though 
it  liad  no  tower  of  defence  and  in  time  of  stress  the  inhabitants  had  to  flee 
to  Kirknewton.^  The  very  next  year  the  Scots  destroyed  the  whole  harvest,* 
and  in  1584  a  tower  either  had  been  built,  or  was  proposed,  for  the  protection 
of  the  township.^  Still  at  Christmas  1588  six  score  Liddesdale  thieves 
burnt  the  village  with  'two  chrysten  soules,'  a  man  and  a  boy  there,  and 
carried  off  horses  and  cattle  to  the  value  of  £300.^  The  occupier  at  the 
time  was  doubtless  Thomas  Strother  of  West  Newton,  who  is  mentioned 
in  a  will  of  1592,'  but  whose  identity  is  not  ascertainable.  When  John 
Strother  of  Kirknewton  died  in  1631,  his  property  in  West  Newton  consisted 
of  nine  carucates  of  land,  half  of  which  was  held  for  life  by  Margery  Selby, 
widow,  by  grant  of  the  deceased  owner,  this  last  being  valued  at  40s.  yearly.^ 
Margery,  or  Margaret,  Selby  of  Grindon  Rigg  was  still  alive  in  1652,  when 
she  surrendered  her  life  interest  in  what  she  describes  as  one  half  of  the 
manor  of  West  Newton  to  Colonel  Wifliam  Strother  of  Kirknewton.^  Before 
this  William  Strother  had  forfeited  his  property  as  a  royalist,  and  when  he 
had  compounded  for  it  in  1649,  the  demesne  and  tithe  of  West  Newton  were 
valued  at  £100.^"  He  was  still  in  possession  in  1663, ^^  but  his  property  was 
heavily  mortgaged,  and  in  1712  his  second  son,  Mark  Strother  of  Fowbery, 

'  In  1 3 1 7  Henry  Rikeraan  of  Carlton  purchased  a  messuage,  forty  acres  of  land  and  five  acres  of  meadow 
in  'Neuton  West'  from  John  Croyde  and  Anabel  his  wife.  {Pedes  Finiitm,  lo  Edw.  II.  No.  38. — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  .xii.  p.  61.)  In  1334  Roland  Grendon  received  royal  pardon  for  acquiring  from  John  of 
Lancaster  2  messuages,  47  acres  of  land  and  one  acre  of  meadow  in  '  Xeutonwest,'  county  Northumberland, 
said  to  be  held  in  chief  and  for  entering  therein  without  licence.  (Cal  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  p.  555.) 
In  1335  a  similar  pardon  was  granted  to  Richard  of  Carlton  for  entering  without  licence  on  2  messuages,  40 
acres  of  land  and  2  acres  of  meadow  in  the  same  place,  held  in  chief,  which  he  inherited  from  Henry  Taylor 
who  had  bought  them  from  John  of  Lancaster.  {Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1334-1338,  p.  100.)  In  1343  William, 
son  of  Ralph  Taylor,  received  a  like  pardon  for  acquiring  from  Richard  Taylor  2  messuages,  56  acres  of  land 
and  2  acres  of  meadow  and  an  eighth  part  of  a  mill  in  the  same  place,  Richard  Taylor  having  acquired 
them  from  John  of  Lancaster,  who  held  them  in  chief.  (Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1343-1345,  p.  108  ;  Originalia 
— Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  317;  Rot.  Fin.  17  Edw.  III.  m.  6 — T>\iV.e'sTranscripts,  vol.  xxxi.  pp.  248-249). 
There  is  little  doubt  that  these  last  references  are  to  Newton  in  Bywell,  and  probably  the  first  one  also 
refers  to  that  township. 

^  See  pages  145-147. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  32;  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  xvi.  p.  478. 

*  Ministers  Accounts,  34  Hen.  VIII.,  note  that  the  whole  of  farm  of  the  corn  tithe  has  been  remitted  as 
all  the  corn  had  been  destroyed  by  the  Scots.     Caley  MS. 

'  Christopher  Dacre's  Plat  of  Castles,  (syc. — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  355.  '  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  125. 

'  Inq.  p.m. — Laing  Charters,  pp.  499-500.  '  Laing  Charters,  pp.  570-571. 

'"  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  347.  "  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 


who  succeeded  to  it,  agreed  with  his  brother  Robert  and  Walter  Ker,  who 
had  married  his  elder  brother's  heiress,  to  apply  for  an  act  of  parlia- 
ment to  allow  the  sale  of  the  township  and  lands  of  West  Newton  with  the 
tithe  and  of  Canno  Mill  with  the  miller's  house  and  farmstead,  the  proceeds 
of  which  were  to  be  used  to  pay  off  the  mortgage,  and  the  surplus,  if  any, 
was  to  be  divided  between  the  parties  to  the  agreement. ^  A  purchaser 
was  found  in  Luke  Clennell  of  Clennell,  Northumberland,  who  by  will  dated 
I2th  September,  1743,  bequeathed  all  his  estate  to  his  son,  Percival  Clennell, 
who  in  turn  bequeathed  it  to  Thomas,  son  of  his  nephew,  Thomas  Fenwick 
of  Earsdon.  Soon  after  the  death  of  Percival  Clennell  in  March,  1796,  the 
heir  to  his  property  assumed  the  arms  and  name  of  Clennell,^  and  in  1833  he 
joined  with  his  eldest  son,  Percival  Fenwick  Clennell,  in  barring  the  entail  and 
executing  a  resettlement.  This  son  and  his  trustees  in  1874  sold  the  estate 
to  Henry  Thomas  Morton  of  Biddick  Hall,  Fence  Houses,  county  Durham, 
on  whose  death  on  23rd  June,  i8g8,  it  passed  under  his  will  to  the  present 
owner,  the  Hon.  F.  W.  Lambton.^ 

Canno  Mill. — Canno  Mill,  in  the  township  of  West  Newton,  was  part 
of  the  property  owned  by  the  priory  of  Kirkham  in  the  middle  ages,  and  was 
conveyed  to  the  Strothers  as  part  of  the  rectory  of  Kirknewton.*  It  was 
handed  down  with  the  rest  of  their  estates  till  in  1716  it  became  the  property 
of  Robert  Strother,  youngest  surviving  son  of  William  Strother  of  Kirk- 
newton.  Under  his  will,  dated  29th  May,  1723,  the  property  was  devised 
in  settlement  to  his  elder  brother,  Mark  Strother,  for  life  and  then  to  Jane 
Drake,  wife  of  Thomas  Drake  of  Norham,  and  failing  her  heirs  to  John  Orde 
of  Morpeth. 5  The  last  named  sold  it  in  1776  to  George  Morton  of  West 
Newton,  who  by  his  will,  proved  in  1799,  devised,  it  in  settlement  to  his 
grandson,  George  Morton,  and  his  issue  male,  and  on  failure  of  this  issue  to 
his  grandson,  Henry  Morton,  and  his  issue  male.  Ultimately  the  property 
passed  into  the  possession  of  Henry  Morton,  who  in  1855  released  his  life 
interest  in  favour  of  his  son,  Henry  Thomas  Morton.  At  the  death  of  the 
last  named  in  1898  Canno  Mill  passed  with  West  Newton  to  the  present 
owner,  the  Hon.  F.  W.  Lambton.® 

'  Waierford  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  79. 

*  For  pedigree  of  Fenwick  of  Earsdon  see  N.C.H.  vol.  ix.  p.  12.  '  West  Newton  Deeds. 

*  See  page  119.  '  Raine,  Testamenia,  vol.  v.  p.  15.  *  Canno  Mill  Deeds. 


KiRKHAM  Priory  Lands  in  Kirknewton  and  West  Newton. — It 
would  seem  according  to  the  claims  put  forward  in  1293  that  Kirkham  priory 
held  no  lands  in  West  Newton,  since  in  that  year  the  prior  only  claimed  free 
warren  in  Kirknewton,^  and  moreover  West  Newton  is  never  mentioned 
either  in  the  Kirkham  Cartulary  or  in  any  other  document  connected  with 
the  priory.  None  the  less  the  description  of  some  of  the  lands  held  by 
the  canons  is  such  as  to  show  that  they  lay  within  the  confines  of  the  latter 
township.  They  were  all  given  to  the  church  of  Newton  and  the  priory  of 
Kirkham  by  Walter  Corbet  early  in  the  thirteenth  century,  and  consisted 
of  a  plot  of  land  lying  between  Berkenstrother  on  the  south  and  the  boundary 
of  Kilham  and  West  Newton  on  the  north,  being  bounded  seemingly  by  the 
road  between  Kilham  and  Newton  on  the  one  side  and  Bowmont  water  on 
the  other,  the  gift  being  expressly  stated  as  not  including  Berkenstrother, 
its  bog  meadow  or  the  meadow  of  Newton.  Included  in  the  gift  however 
was  Stevensheugh  'belonging  to  the  church  of  Newton,'  Whiteside  and 
common  pasture  such  as  was  enjoyed  by  the  donor  and  his  tenants. ^  The 
whole  of  this  was  seemingly  given  as  an  additional  endowment  to  the  rectory, 
and  apart  from  Whiteside,  of  which  no  further  mention  occurs,  it  consisted 
of  two  plots  of  land.  Of  these  Stevensheugh  was  seemingly  shortly  after- 
wards in  dispute,  for  the  canons  took  care  to  enrol  affidavits  made  by  Sampson 
of  Coupland,  Henry  Manners  of  Stevensheugh  and  Merlin,  parson  of  the 
church  of  Branxton,  to  the  effect  that  Walter  Corbet  had  given  Stevensheugh 
up  to  the  burn  which  divided  it  from  HoUinghow  to  the  church  of  Newton,^ 
and  Robert  of  Newton  also  quitclaimed  whatever  right  he  had  therein.*  In 
1241  the  prior  of  Kirkham  conceded  common  pasture  in  Stevensheugh  to 
Sampson  of  Newton  for  all  his  animals  and  flocks  in  Newton  save  for  goats, 
in  return  for  which  Sampson  renounced  all  claim  to  common  pasture  in  New- 
ton as  against  the  prior. ^    Adam,  son  of  Sampson,  however,  quitclaimed 

'  Quo  Warranto,  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  119;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii. 
pp.  369-370.     The  charter  of  1252  granting  this  only  mentions  'Newton.'     Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  405. 

= 'Carta  Walteri  Corbet  super  libertatibus  de  Newton  in  Glendale.  In  qua  continetur  quod  dictus 
Willelmus  dedet(sii:)  Ecclesie  de  Newton  et  Canonicis  de  K.  totam  terram  a  fine  Birkyngestrede  versus 
aquilonem  vsque  ad  vltimas  diuisas  inter  Kyllum  et  Newton  sicut  via  extendit  se  a  Newton  vsque  ad 
Killum,  scihcet  sub  via  versus  Bolebek  sine  aliquo  retinemento  exceptis  Birkestrede  maresco  suo  prato  suo  et 
prato  de  Newton.  Dedit  eciam  eis  steuencshew  quod  pertinet  ad  ecclesiam  de  New-ton.  Et  Whyteside 
iaccbit  in  coramuni  et  in  cultura.  Idem  vult  vt  ecclesia  de  Newton  habeat  communam  pasture  cum  eo 
et  homines  ecclesie  cum  hominibus  suis.'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84.  This  gift  was  confirmed  bv  Nicholas 
Corbet.     Ibid. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  83.     Merlin  was  rector  of  Branxton  circa  1200,  see  page  10 1. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

'  Pedes  l-'itiium,  25  Hen.  III.  No.  96 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  p.  209;  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  90. 


this  right  of  common  pasture  in  Stevensheugh  to  the  canons  of  Kirkham,^ 
and  Alan,  son  of  Adam  Sampson,  ratified  this  renunciation. ^  Adam,  son 
of  Samuel,  seemingly  had  a  right  of  way  through  the  '  pasture  called  Stevens- 
heugh,' for  he  quitclaimed  this  to  the  canons  towards  the  close  of  the 
thirteenth  century.^  If  it  is  this  same  plot  of  ground  which  is  described  in 
another  charter  of  a  similar  kind,^  Stevensheugh  was  probably  in  Kirk- 
newton.  It  is  equally  probably  that  the  other  holding  described  in  Walter 
Corbet's  grant  was  in  West  Newton.  With  regard  to  this  last  also  Robert 
of  Newton,  who  possibly  held  the  manor  under  the  Corbets,  renounced  all 
claims  he  might  have  therein,^  and  further  granted  to  the  canons  his  moiety 
of  Berkenstrother,^  the  other  moiety  of  which  together  with  the  bog,  was  also 
given  to  them  by  Nicholas  Corbet.''  The  situation  of  this  strip  of  land  strongly 
suggests  that  it  was  what  is  now  known  as  Canno  Mill  and  Canno  Bog,  a 
supposition  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  former  at  any  rate  passed 
ultimately  into  Strother  hands,  as  parcel  of  the  rectory  of  Kirknewton.^ 

'  Kirhham  Cartulary,  fol,  83.  -  Ibid.  fol.  84. 

^  Kirkhain  Cartulary,  fol.  84.  The  date  is  fixed  by  the  fact  that  an  Adam  son  of  Samuel  appears  in 
Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  99. 

'  Quieta  clamancia  Adae,  fiUii  Samuelis,  de  quadam  placea  in  Newton,  in  qua  continetur  quod  dictus  A. 
quietum  clamavit  Can.  de  K.  totum  jus  quod  habuit  racione  communicandi  in  una  placea  inter  manerium 
dictorum  can.  in  Newton  et  semitam  illam  subtus  Steveneshow  quae  ducit  apud  Yvern,  ascendendo  per  semitam 
illam  ab  angulo  occidentali  clausurae  dicti  manerii  versus  orientem  usque  ad  croftum,  quod  Willelmus  de  Barton 
tenuit  ad  firmam,  et  sic  descendendo  ju.xta  dictum  croftum  usque  ad  angulum  orientalem  clausurae  praedictae. 
ita  quod  dicti  can.  dictam  placeam  possint  includere  et  in  suo  separali  singulis  anni  temporibus  bene  et 
pacifice  possidere.'     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

'  '  Carta  Roberti  de  Newton  de  quieta  clamancia  de  bosco  et  de  pastura,  in  qua  continetur  quod  dictus 
R.  concessit  et  confirmavit  et  quietum  clamavit  can.  de  K.  totum  jus  et  clamium  quod  habuit  in  bosco, 
terris,  pastura  inter  Merburne  et  Newton  sub  via  quae  tendit  de  Kyllum  apud  Newton,  scilicet  quantum 
terrae  est  inter  dictam  viam  et  aquam  de  Bolbent  cum  omnibus  pertincntibus,  salvo  sibi  et  haerechbus  suis 
prato  suo  de  Newton.  Item  concessit  dictis  can.  ut  habeant  communam  averiis  suis  et  hominum  suorum 
de  Kyrknewton  in  pastura  villae  de  Newton  ubique  cum  libero  introitu  et  exitu  undique  circa  eandera  villam, 
excepto  illo  loco  qui  vocatur  Schalestokes."     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  83. 

'  '  Birkenstroder.'     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fols.  84-85. 

'  '  Carta  Nicolai  Corbet  feoffamenti  de  Byrkenstreth  una  in  qua  continetur  quod  dictus  N.  dedit  Can.  de  K. 
totam  partem  suam  de  Byrkenstreth  in  territorio  de  Newton.  Item  concessit  dictus  can.  quod  possint  totum 
mariscum  de  Byrkenstreth  fossato  includere,  et  fossatum  facere  per  medium  pratum  suum  de  Newton  usque 
Bolbent,  cujus  latitudo  \T.  pedes  continebit.'     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84. 

'  See  page  i 19. 




Descent  of  the  Manor. — The  township  of  Kilham^  has  a  sUghtly 
larger  population  than  Kirknewton,^  but  there  is  practically  no  village,  the 
inhabitants  being  scattered  over  a  wide  area.  It  was  a  member  of  the  barony 
of  Roos.  The  overlordship  passed  with  the  barony,  and  in  the  early  days 
of  the  fifteenth  century  became  united  with  the  ownership  of  the  manor  in 
the  hands  of  the  Greys. 


Robert  of  Shotton  (h)  =  Amabel  (A). 

Walter  of  Shotton  (a),  alias  of   Kilham  (h) ;  gave  his  body  to  be  = 
buried  at  Kelso  Abbey  (A). 

(2)  Roger  Grey  (6)  =  Beatrice,  daughter  =  (i)  Thomas  of  Kilham,  grants  land  to 
of  Michael  of  Kirkham  priory,  1227(a);  died 

Rihill  (a).  before  1242  (b). 

Walter  of  =  Matilda  (6). 
Paston  (6) 

Michael  of  Kilham,  died  before  1290  =  Idonea,  died  before  1303. 


John  of  Kil- 


Robert    of      ^ 

_  William  of  Kil- 

Aline, sister  =  (i)  Thomas    Clennell, 

ham  {d). 

of  Kil- 

Kilham {d) 

ham,  held 

and  heir  of             aged  30  or  more  at 

ham  (d). 

lands  in 

Nicholas  of             death    of    Nicholas 


Paston  (d). 

Kilham,                   of  Kilham  (/). 

and  heir 

aged  40  or       (2) Sweethope.    He 

of   John 


3f  Kilham  (/). 

more  at  his         is  nowhere  mentioned. 

of  Kil- 

death (/).           but  in    1334   Aline   is 

ham  ig]  ; 

called    'Aline    Sweet- 


hope  ■(/)■ 


1327  (/)• 

William  Boulton  (t)=Avis,  daughter  and  heir  of 

(a)  Pedes  Finium,  11  Hen.  III.  No.  18. — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  i.  p.  88. 

(6)  Curia  Regis  Roll,  Nos.  124,  130. — Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  xxi.  pp.  227-228,  239-240. 

(c)  Northumberland   Assize   Rolls,    (Surtees   Soc), 

p.  176. 

[d]  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  81,  m.  72. — Duke's  Tran- 

scripts, vol.  xxvii.  pp.  408-409. 

Aline  (i). 

(e)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  145,  m.  233. — Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  x.xix.  pp.  138-139. 

(/)    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vii.  p.  386. 

ig)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  144,  m.  324.—  Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  x.xi.K.  pp.  103-104. 

(h)  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  pp.  265-267. 

(t)   De  Banco  Roll,  No.  337,  m.  346. 

(A)  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  No.  363. 

(/)    Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1332-1337,  p.  167. 

Quite  early  in  the  thirteenth  century  we  hear  of  two  owners  of  property 
in  the  township,  though  whether  they  held  the  manor  or  not  is  a  matter 

'  Earlier  Killum,  Kylliim,  Kylnom,  Kilholme,  Kylham.  Probably  O.E.  (cet  tha-m)  (■v'"w>«=(at  the) 
kilns.     Kill  is  the  common  Northumbrian  pronunciation  of  kiln. 

2  Census  returns  are  :  1801,206;  1811,252;  1821,246;  1831,217;  1841,279;  1851,258;  1861,209; 
1871,2:0;   1881,156;    1891,143;    1901.113;   igii,  116.     "The  township  comprises  2871316  acres. 


of  conjecture.  A  certain  William  of  Paston  sold  two  bovates  there  to  the 
first  Robert  Roos,  who  included  them  in  his  gift  of  lands  to  the  hospital  of 
St.  Thomas  the  Martyr,  Bolton,^  and  a  gift  of  twelve  bovates  of  land  there  to 
Kirkham  priory,  confirmed  by  the  same  Robert  Roos,  and  therefore  pre- 
sumably dating  from  the  same  period,  was  made  by  Henry  Manners  and  his 
wife  Isabel. 2  This  property  was  doubtless  of  the  latter's  inheritance,  as  in 
the  case  of  another  gift  by  her  and  her  husband  the  careful  canons  secured 
a  confirmation  from  her  mother  Isabel  of  Kilham.^  A  httle  later  we  find 
another  landowner  in  the  person  of  Walter  of  Kilham,  son  of  Robert  of 
Shotton,  confirming  his  father's  gift  of  eight  acres  of  arable  land  situated 
above  '  Whitelawestede '  in  Kilham  to  the  monks  of  Melrose,  who  were  to 
be  allowed  to  keep  twelve  head  of  cattle,  80  sheep  and  two  horses  there.* 
Walter  of  Kilham's  son,  Thomas  of  Kilham,  made  an  exchange  of  these 
lands  for  others  in  Shotton,^  and  this  last  we  may  identify  with  Thomas  of 
Kilham,  son  of  Walter  of  Shotton,  who  in  1227  gave  lands  to  the  canons  of 
Kirkham,^  as  Walter  of  Shotton  and  Walter  of  Kilham  were  doubtless  the 
same  person.  These  three  men,  Robert,  Walter  and  Thomas  were  probably 
successively  lords  of  the  manor,  since  the  canons  in  1234  secured  from  the 
last  named  a  confirmation  of  all  their  possessions,  whether  in  land  or  other- 
wise, within  the  territory  of  Kilham.^  That  they  inherited  the  Manners 
property  seems  also  likely  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Thomas  of  Kilham  con- 
firmed a  gift  made  by  Henry  Manners  and  Isabel  to  the  Kirkham  canons.^ 
Thomas  of  Kilham  died  before  1242,  as  in  that  year  his  widow,  then  the 
wife  of  Roger  Grey,  sued  her  brother-in-law,  Walter  of  Paston,  and  his 
wife  Matilda,  for  dower  in  half  a  carucate  and  two  bovates  of  land  in  Kilham. 
Walter  maintained  that  his  brother  had  given  him  this  land  long  before  he 
died,  and  he  called  to  warrant  his  nephew  Michael,  as  son  and  heir  of  Thomas 
of  Kilham.     Eventually  Michael  was  ordered  to  satisfy  the  claim  for  dower 

'  Monasticon,  vol.  vi.  pt.  ii.  p.  692.  The  date  of  the  charter  is  about  1225  and  it  was  confirmed  by  the 
King  in  1227.     Col.  of  Charier  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  30.     The  date  of  the  sale  must  have  been  earlier  still. 

*  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85.  '  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85. 

♦  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  pp.  265-266.  The  charter  falls  in  the  reign  of  Alexander  II.  1214-1249.  As 
the  confirmation  was  made  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  Walter  Espec  and  Walter  of  Kilham's  lord,  Robert 
Roos,  we  may  imagine  that  it  dates  from  the  days  of  the  second  Robert  Roos,  and  that  the  original  gift  was 
made  in  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  centurj'.  From  one  of  the  charters  of  Isabel,  mother-in-law  of  Henry 
Manners,  it  is  evident  that  Robert  of  Shotton  was  a  landowner  in  Kilham  contemporaneously  with  her. 
Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85. 

'  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  pp.  266-267. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  11  Hen.  III.  Xo.  18. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  p.  87. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85.     Thomas  is  called  lord  of  Kilham  in  a  Kirkham  charter.  •  Ibid. 


out  of  his  inheritance.^     This  Michael  of  Kilham  was  a  person  of  some 
importance.     He  is  described  as  a  knight  when  witnessing  a  document  in 
1281,2  and  in  1284  he  received  a  royal  grant  of  free  warren  in  all  his  demesne 
lands  in  Kilham,  with  the  special  provision  of  a  fine  of  £10  to  be  imposed 
on  any  one  hunting  there  without  his  licence.^     He  is  also  mentioned  as  having 
a  private  chapel  in  Kilham  with  an  endowment  of  its  own.^     During  his  life- 
time he  dispersed  a  good  deal  of  his  property,  though  we  know  only  of  one 
actual  alienation  of  land,  which  was  to  his  son  Nicholas  and  consisted  of  a  mill 
and  lands  called  'Newhalow,   Elfordhalow,   the  Floros,   &c.,'   in  Kilham. ^ 
After  his  death,  however,  when  in  1290  his  widow  Idonea  sought  her  dower, 
she  had  to  sue  no  less  than  eleven  defendants,  eight  of  whom  held  property 
in  Kilham.     Four  of  these  were  Michael's  sons,  John,  Nicholas,  William  and 
Robert.      John's  holdings  were  given  as  37  messuages,  3  carucates  and  48 
bovates  of  land,  30  acres  of  meadow  and  100  acres  of  wood,  all  in  Kilham. 
Nicholas  held  i  messuage,  i  toft,  57  acres  of  land,  4  acres  of  pasture  and 
9  marks  and  2od.  rent  in  Kilham  and  Shotton,  William  had  4  messuages, 
6  bovates  and  8  acres  of  land,  3  acres  of  pasture  and  2s.  6d.  rent  in  Kilham 
and  Paston,  while  Robert  had  only  6  marks  rent  in  Kilham.     Other  persons 
holding  property  in  Kilham,  presumably  alienated  to  them  by  Michael  of 
Kilham,  were  the  prior  of  Kirkham  with  gl  acres  of  land,  4  acres  of  pasture, 
and  20s.  rent,  Thomas  Baxter  with  one  messuage,  2  bovates  of  land,  and  a 
moiety  of  i  acre  of  meadow,  and  Thomas  Archer  with  i  messuage,  i  toft  and 
3  acres  of  land.     Robert  Roos  of  Wark  also  held  3  messuages,  66  acres  of 
land  and  the  third  part  of  a  mill  in  Kilham  and  Shotton.     So  far  as  the 
younger  sons  were  concerned,  they  called  their  brother  John  to  warrant, 
and  he  was  ordered  to  find  the  dower  on  their  holdings  out  of  his  owti. 
Idonea  also  secured  dower  against  him  and  against  the  prior  of  Kirkham  for 
the  lands  they  held,  but  no  result  of  the  case  as  against  the  other  defendants 
has  transpired.^      During  the  course  of  the  trial  one  Robert  Archer  put 
forward  claims  to  the  property  of  John   of   Kilham,    and  though  on  the 
evidence  of  the  sheriff  the  court  gave  judgment  against  him,"  by  1293  he  had 

•  Curia  Regis  Rolls,  Nos.  124,  125,  130 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxi.  pp.  225,  227-228,  233,  239-240. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.        '  Cal.  oj  Patent  Rolls,  1281-1293,  p.  123.        '  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  86. 

'  British  Museum,  Harleian  Charters,  112,  I.  37. 

«  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  81,  m.  72  ;  No.  82,  m.  48  ;  No.  83,  65do  ;  No.  86,  m.  74do  ;  No.  87,  m.  3odo  ; 
No.  89,  m.  71. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  408-409,  414,  415,  436-437,  475-476,  506-507,  533-535. 
In  1293  Idonea  sued  William  son  of  Michael  of  Kilham  for  dower  in  a  tenement  in  Kilham,  but  withdrew  her 
case.     Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  p.  42. 

'  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  87,  m.  3odo  ;   No.  89,  m.  71. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  506-507,  533-535. 


doubtless  substantiated  them,  as  he  then  held  lands  in  the  township. ^  The 
situation  is  made  clear  by  litigation  begun  in  1300  between  John,  son  and 
heir  of  Robert  Archer,  and  Nicholas,  son  of  Michael  of  Kilham.  Michael 
of  Kilham's  son,  John,  had  succeeded  to  his  father's  main  property,  which  is 
for  the  first  time  described  as  the  manor  of  Kilham,  but  almost  immediately 
had  alienated  it  to  Robert  Archer,  who  had  entered  on  the  property  which 
at  his  death,  shortly  afterwards,  had  passed  to  his  son,  John  Archer.  Michael's 
widow  Idonea,  however,  was  still  alive,  but  dying  in  1300  her  dower  was 
seized  by  Nicholas  of  Kilham  as  heir  to  his  brother  John,  now  dead.  John 
Archer  sued  him  for  this  property,  consisting  of  10  messuages,  238  acres  of  land, 
5  acres  of  pasture  and  a  moiety  of  a  messuage,  all  in  Kilham,  alleging  that 
the  reversion  of  the  dower  had  been  sold  to  his  father  together  with 
the  manor.  Nicholas  retorted  by  claiming  the  whole  manor  on  the  ground 
that  his  brother  was  out  of  his  mind  when  the  conveyance  took  place. - 
That  John  Archer  won  the  case,  as  far  as  the  manor  is  concerned,  is  proved 
by  the  fact  that  he  appears  as  lord  of  Kilham  when  witnessing  deeds  in 
1315  and  1318,^  and  his  son  Robert*  had  succeeded  him  as  such  in  1323,^ 
but  Nicholas  of  Kilham  still  owTied  land  there,  doubtless  that  property 
given  to  him  by  his  father  in  the  latter's  lifetime.  Of  this  he  sold  a  messuage 
and  24  acres  to  Patrick,  son  of  William  of  Kilham,^  and  the  rest  passed 
to  Aline  his  sister  and  heir,  and  her  husband,  Thomas  Clennell.'  After  the 
latter's  death  Aline  seems  to  have  married  a  member  of  the  family  of  Sweet- 
hope,  and  in  her  new  name  she  sold  60  acres  of  land,  12  acres  of  wood,  the 
moiety  of  a  messuage  and  the  fourth  part  of  a  mill  in  Kilham  and  Paston  to  the 
same  Patrick.  She  also  alienated  two  messuages,  80  acres  of  land,  i-J  acres  of 
wood  and  a  fourth  part  of  a  mill  in  Kilham  and  Paston  to  Adam,  son  of 
Thomas  of  Kilham,  who  also  had  bought  the  moiety  of  a  messuage  in  Kilham 
from  Thomas  Clennell.^  Further  she  sold  to  Patrick,  son  of  William  of  Kilham, 
20  acres  of  land  in  Kilham,^  thus  probabh'  having  alienated  all  her  inheritance, 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  266,  267. 

^  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  135,  m.  252do  ;  No.  139,  m.  4ido,  53do  ;  No.  144,  m.  324  ;  No.  145,  m.  233  ;  No. 
152,  m.  204 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  pp.  639-640,  714,  715  ;  vol.  xxix,  pp.  103-104,  136-137,  138- 
139,  424-425.  Nicholas  son  of  Michael  is  called  son  of  Nicholas  in  two  Rolls,  but  the  context  shows  it  to  be 
a  clerical  error. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  Drawers  14,  21.  *  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354-1360,  p.  425. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi  p.  289. 

•  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1332-1337,  p.  167  ;  Originalia,    S  Edw.  III. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  310. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vii.  p.  386. 

'  Inq.  A.Q.D.  file  ccxxiv.  No.  4  ;    Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1333-1337,  p.  167. 

"  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vii.  p.  386;    Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1333-1337,  p.  210. 

Vol.    XI.  21 


which  now  was  owned  partly  by  Patrick  of  Kilham  and  partly  by  Adam  of 

Kilham.i     Part  of  this  at  any  rate  found  its  way  into  the  hands  of  the  prior 

of  Kirkham.2 


Robert  Archer,  bought  manor  of  Kilham  from  =  Plcsaunce  (a)=John  of  Grcystones,  second 
John  of  Kilham  ;  died  before  1300  (a).  1  husband  (f). 

(a)  John  Archer,  lord  of  Kilham,  1315,  1318  (6)  = 

Robert  Archer  (d).  lord  of  Kilham.  1323  (c)  =5=  John    Archer,    confirmed   all 

lands  given  by  his  brother 
and  nephew  to  John  Coup- 

John  Archer  (d).  sells  manor  of  Kilham  to  John  =  Isabel  {e).  land   and   his   wife    Joan, 

Coupland  and  his  wife  Joan,  1353  (e).  '357  (<*)• 

(a)  De  Banco  Rolls.  No.  135,  m.  252do  ;    No.  139.  (<fl  Cat.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354-1360,  p.  425. 

mm.  4ido,  53do  ;   No.  44,  m.  324.— Duke's  (e)   Pedes  Fmium,  i-j  Edw.  III.  No.  95 — Duke's 
Transcripts,    vol.  xxviii.  pp.  639-640,   714,  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.   202-203. 

715,  vol.  xxix.  pp.  103-104.  (/)   De  Banco  Roll.   No.    153.   m.    183-Duke's 
(6)  Belvoir  Deeds,  Drawers  14,  21.  Transcripts,  vol.  xxix.  p.  454. 

(c)   Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  280. 

So  far  as  the  manor  is  concerned  it  only  remained  in  the  Archer  family 
for  four  generations,  for  John,  son  of  Robert  Archer,  sold  it  in  1353  to  Sir 
John  Coupland,^  from  whom  it  passed  with  the  rest  of  his  property  to  his 
widow  Joan,  who  in  turn  sold  it  with  the  rest  of  her  property  to  Sir  Richard 
Arundel  in  1372.*  The  manor  of  Kilham  formed  part  of  the  estate  of  Sir 
John  Arundel  who  died  in  1380,  being  then  valued  at  £14  6s.  8d.  in  normal 
times,  but  at  the  moment  utterly  wasted  by  the  Scots. ^  It  was  owned  by 
Richard  Arundel  in  1400,*'  and  was  mortgaged  to  Harry  Hotspur  at  the 
time  of  the  latter's  death,''  doubtless  being  sold  to  the  Greys  with  the  rest 
of  the  Arundel's  Northumbrian  property  in  1408,^  since  in  1443  Sir  Ralph 
Grey  died  seised  of  '  the  township  of  Kyllum,  worth  yearly  30s.  but  no  more 

'  From  a  suit  brought  in  1344  it  would  seem  that  not  Adam  of  Kilham  but  his  wife  Matilda  acquired 
the  property  from  .Mine.  After  Adam's  death  it  was  held  by  Matilda  and  her  second  husband,  .■\lexander 
Newbiggin,  who  were  sued  for  it  by  .\vis,  daughter  and  heir  of  .-Vline.  and  William  Boulton  on  the  ground 
that  Aline  was  insane  at  the  time  of  the  alienation.  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  337,  m.  346.  The  exact  situation  with 
regard  to  the  various  landowners  is  summed  up  in  an  extent  of  the  barony  of  Koos  in  1328.  '  Robert  .\rcher 
holds  four  parts  of  the  manor  of  Kilham  and  owes  suit  at  the  court,  also  Patrick  Fitz-William  holds  the  moiety 
of  one-fifth  part  of  the  manor  of  Kilham  and  renders  yearly  3s.,  also  Fitz  Thomas  holds  a  moiety  of  one-fifth 
part  of  the  manor  and  renders  yearly  2s.  4d.'     Lambert  ^IS. 

*  See  pages  165-166. 

'  De  Banco  Roll.  No.  375,  m.  sSdo;  Pedes  Finium.  27  Edw.  III.  No.  95 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix. 
pp.  202-203.  The  sale  was  confirmed  by  John  Archer's  uncle  John  in  1357.  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1354-1360, 
p.  425- 

*  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  111.  No.  137  ;  47  Edw.  III.  No.  158 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274- 
276,  314-315  :    Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1369-1376,  p.  448. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  3  Ric.  II.  No.  i — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-45. 
'  Inq.  p.m.  2  Hen.  IV.  No.  50 — Scalacronica,  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  p.  bd. 
'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1401-1405,  pp.  309-310.  *  See  page  324. 


in  these  days,'  held  of  the  king  in  socage  as  of  the  lordship  of  Wark.^ 
Even  before  1408  the  Greys  had  been  sub-tenants  of  the  manor,  as  in  1400 
this  man's  grandfather.  Sir  Thomas  Grey,  had  died  seised  of  one  husband- 
land  and  two  cottages  held  of  Richard  Arundel  as  of  the  manor  of  Kilham, 
the  rents  being  valued  at  3s.  but  at  the  moment  worth  nothing. ^  The  posses- 
sion of  the  manor  by  no  means  included  all  the  lands  of  the  township,  and  in 
1541  the  Commissioners  surveying  the  border,  who  as  a  rule  took  no  notice 
of  small  freeholds,  contented  themselves  with  the  statement  that  '  the  most 
parte  thereof  ys  the  inherytaunce  of  .  .  .  Mr.  Greye  of  Chyllyngham.'^ 
The  rent  roll  of  this  portion  was  returned  in  1561  as  £10  6s.  8d.*  By  his  will, 
made  in  1589,  Sir  Thomas  Grey  of  Chillingham  left  to  his  brother  Edward  for 
21  years  or  for  his  life,  at  his  option,  '  the  towne  ....  of  Kyllam,  and  also  the 
east  fields  of  Killam,'  and  to  his  servant  Thomas  Grey  'one  tenement  or 
farmholde'  there  for  21  years  or  for  life  'for  rent  and  service  accustomed.'^ 
In  1593  the  manor  of  Kilham  was  included  in  the  property  of  Ralph  Grey 
of  Chillingham,^  and  the  rate  book  of  1663  gives  the  whole  township  to  Lord 
Grey  with  a  rental  of  £396.''  In  1682  the  property  was  described  as  Kilham, 
worth  yearh^  £joj,  Kilham  glebe  £10,  Kilham  tenements  £13,  Kilham 
mill  £20,  lands  and  tenements  called  Kilham  Hill  £22,  and  tithes  of  com 
in  Kilham  £2^.^  All  this  passed  to  the  earls  of  Tankerville  and  remained 
with  them  till  1913,  when  the  farm  of  Kilham,  containing  2,009  acres,  was  sold 
to  Sir  Alfred  L.  Goodson  of  Manchester,  Kilham  Bungalow  with  13  acres 
being  offered  at  the  same  time  but  withdrawn.  As  to  Thomington — which 
seems  to  have  been  the  property,  once  belonging  to  the  Kirkham  canons  and 
bought  from  the  Strothers  about  1626 — the  mansion  was  in  1913  sold  to 
Mr.  Leonard  Briggs  of  Sunderland,  but  the  farm  of  819  acres,  though  offered, 
was  withdrawn.^ 

Kirkham  Priory  Lands. — The  canons  of  Kirkham  managed  to  acquire 
a  considerable  tract  of  land  in  Kilham.  Henry  Manners,  his  wife,  and  his 
mother-in-law,  were  all  concerned  in  a  gift  to  them  of  12  bovates  and  2  tofts 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  file  ill. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  2  Hen.  IV.  No.  50 — Scalacronica,  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  p.  Ixi. 

»  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  31.  *  P.R.O.  State  Papers,  Borders,  5.  fol.  103. 

*  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  pp.  172,  174.  '  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  centurj',  p.  62. 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

»  P.R.O.  Exchequer  Special  Commissions,  Northumberland,   36  Chas.  II.  No.  6,218.     It  is  not  quite  clear 
whether  the  first  figure  is  meant  to  be  the  sum  total  of  the  other  amounts  or  not. 
'  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xxii.  p.  307. 


— one  of  the  latter  lying  at  the  western  end  of  the  vill  on  the  southern  bank 
of  Bowmont  water,  the  other  lying  hard  by  the  road  from  Kirkncwton  to 
Carham — together  with  sufficient  pasturage  for  1,000  sheep  and  their  lambs 
from  their  birth  till  midsummer,  16  oxen,  4  draught  beasts  and  8  cows.  To 
this  his  mother-in-law  added  an  acre  of  meadow  in  her  charter  confirming  the 
original  gift.^  By  other  grants  Henry  Manners  and  his  wife  gave  four  bovates 
of  land  on  one  occasion  and  two  bovates  on  another,  together  with  common 
pasture  for  16  beasts  of  burden.-  The  grants  and  concessions  of  the  manorial 
family,  which  took  its  origin  from  Robert  of  Shotton,  were  very  considerable. 
Robert  himself  only  gave  an  acre  and  a  confirmation  of  all  the  land  held  by 
the  canons  in  the  township,  and  his  son,  Walter  of  Shotton,  only  added  the 
concession  that  all  the  cattle  of  the  prior's  men  should  have  equal  rights  of 
pasture  with  his  own  tenants.^  Thomas  of  Kilham  was  more  generous.  He 
began  by  confirming  the  right  of  the  canons  to  the  two  carucates  and  the 
pasturage  which  they  held  in  the  days  of  Henry  Manners,  and  made  the 
position  the  more  clear  by  levying  a  fine  to  this  effect,  by  which  the  prior 
undertook  for  himself  and  his  successors  to  pay  a  mark  annually  to  Thomas 
and  his  heirs  b}-  his  wife  Beatrice.'*  He  also  confirmed  a  holding  of  two 
bovates  and  a  plot  of  ^-k  acres  which  lay  in  front  of  the  canons'  house  in  the 
vill,  originally  given  by  the  Manners  to  Harold,  porter  of  Carham,  and  by 
the  latter  to  the  canons,  the  rent  of  a  pair  of  stockings  or  4d.  annually  having 
been  since  remitted.^  On  his  own  account  he  gave  ten  acres  of  land  in  the 
place  called  Coteside  with  permission  to  build  a  sheepfold  there,  and  pasture 
for  300  sheep,®  but  he  evidently  had  some  difficulty  with  them  over  the 
pasturage  rights  north  of  the  Bowmont  water,  partly  as  to  cattle  which  had 
strayed  thither,  and  he  ultimately  undertook  in  return  for  an  annual 
rent  of  6s.  to  close  the  pasture  to  all  people  who  were  not  actually  resident 
in  the  township.'  His  widow  Beatrice  also  had  litigation  with  them  concern- 
ing their  sheepfold  and  a  wall,  and  claimed  dower  in  the  ten  acres  at  Coteside, 
but  she  ultimately  withdrew  her  demands.^  Probably  to  this  period  belongs 
a  gift,  made  by  John  Hare,  of  a  field  called  Scoteflate,  which  was  bordered  by 
Coteside  on  the  north  and  by  the  road  from  Kilham  to  Heddon  on  the  south, 
the  canons'  sheepfold  abutting  on  one  side  and  a  little  tributary  of  the 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85.  =  Ibid.  »  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  86. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85;  Pedes  Finium,  11  Hen.  III.  Xo.  18— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  p.  88. 
'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fols.  85,  86.  "  Ibid.  fol.  85.  '  Ibid.  fol.  80.  «  Ibid. 


Blackburn  on  the  other.  Another  rood  of  land  near  the  sheepfold  was 
included  in  the  grant,  which  was  confirmed  by  Thomas  of  Kilham  as  lord 
of  the  manor.i  Michael  of  Kilham  added  to  the  already  extensive  posses- 
sions of  the  canons  eight  acres  of  land  in  le  Halwe  on  either  side  of  the  Black- 
burn with  the  pasture  in  Crenehalwe  and  all  the  land  in  le  Hesthalwe,  and 
four  acres  of  meadow  at  Schappelawe.  Also  he  gave  permission  for  a  wall 
to  be  built  round  this  holding,  and  for  a  ditch  and  pond  to  be  made  therein. 
Later  he  also  gave  permission  for  the  making  of  a  ditch  to  mark  the  boundary 
of  his  property  and  that  of  the  canons  in  his  wood,  and  on  his  mother's  death 
he  gave  them  what  had  been  her  dower  in  le  Holme,  lying  on  the  south  side 
of  the  Blackburn. 2  He  extended  their  pasture  rights  by  allowing  them  to 
turn  their  animals  out  on  his  arable  land,  and  on  that  of  his  tenants,  after  the 
crops  had  been  gathered  in  till  the  feast  of  the  Purification,  and  all  the 
year  round  on  such  lands  as  were  lying  fallow  and  in  a  plot  called  Under- 
nodwyside  near  his  sheepfold  of  Schappelawe.  He  gave  them  rights  of 
access  to  the  pasture  known  as  le  Ward,  of  pasturage  for  fifteen  sheep  and  two 
cows  with  their  offspring  in  the  common  pasture,  and  of  digging  soil  and 
stone  in  his  lands  for  the  repair  of  their  buildings.^  Still  all  this  did  not 
prevent  a  disagreement  with  regard  to  pasturage  rights,  which  came  before 
the  courts  in  1269,  when  the  prior  of  Kirkham  complained  that  these  had 
been  infringed,  and  that  300  of  the  1,000  sheep  feeding  on  the  'great  moor' 
of  Kilham  had  been  driven  off.  It  was  found  that  his  complaints  were 
groundless,*  though  perhaps  he  thus  gained  the  concession  whereby 
Michael  renounced  the  annual  rent  of  one  mark,  secured  to  him  by  the 
fine  of  1227,  and  another  of  half  a  mark.^  Apart  from  these  grants  from 
the  lords  of  the  manor,  there  was  a  little  property  given  by  lesser  persons. 
Matilda,  widow  of  Thomas  Colman,  a  resident  in  Paston,  gave  the  canons 
an  acre  of  land.^  Henry,  son  of  Adam  of  Branxton,  gave  them  a  plot  called 
Addanescrok,  lying  between  their  wood  and  Bowmont  water,  and  William, 
son  of  Walter  of  Kilham,  sold  them  half  an  acre  of  meadow  for  which  he 
secured  licence  from  the  master  of  Chibburn,'^  though  M'hat  interest  the 
latter  had  therein  is  not  known.  Finally  Adam,  son  of  Thomas  of  Kilham, 
first  leased,  and  then  sold,  an  acre  of  land  and  meadow,  and  later  the  plot  caUed 
Andrewslaw,  to  the  prior  and  convent,*  a  conveyance  which  must  have  been 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  85.      -  Ibid.      ^  Ibid.  io\.  86.      "  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtecs  Soc),  p.  176. 
5  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  «  Ibid.  fol.  88.  '  Ibid.  (ol.  86.  '  Ibid.  fol.  87. 


effected  by  licence  under  the  statute  of  mortmain,  as  Adam  lived  in  the 
second  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  century,^  and  was  contemporary  with  Robert 
Archer,  who  is  mentioned  in  one  of  the  charters. 

With  a  property  so  large  as  this,  it  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  the  prior 
of  Kirkham  had  often  to  maintain  his  rights.  The  free  warren  granted  to 
him  in  1252,^  had  to  be  justified  in  1293,^  and  in  1256  Robert  Roos  was 
mulcted  in  damages  of  £20  for  having  carried  off  two  oxen  and  two  horses 
of  the  prior's  from  Kilham  to  the  castle  of  Wark.*  For  twelve  long  years, 
beginning  in  1280,  did  the  prior  and  one  Thomas  of  Paston  litigate  about 
the  taking  of  some  of  the  former's  sheep  by  way  of  distress,  and  even  then 
judgment  was  not  given. ^  It  was  again  a  matter  of  pasture  rights  which 
caused  litigation  between  the  prior  and  Robert  Archer  in  1292  and  1293, 
the  latter  winning  his  case,^  but  such  was  the  penalty  of  scattered  possessions 
and  undefined  rights.  At  the  dissolution  of  the  religious  houses  all  this 
property  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  crown,  and  for  a  time  was  leased  to 
Rowland  Brandford,  but  in  1553  it  was  sold  together  with  the  corn  mill, 
which  had  also  belonged  to  the  priory,  to  William  Strother  of  Kirknewton,  to 
be  held  in  socage  of  the  king  as  of  his  manor  of  East  Greenwich.'^  These  lands 
in  Kilham  were  included  in  the  settlement  of  his  property  made  by  William 
Strother  in  1579,^  and  a  certain  John  Strother  of  Kilham  is  mentioned  in 
1596.^  The  same  lands  were  sold  by  John  Strother  of  Newton  to  Sir  Ralph 
Grey,  and  were  included  among  the  properties  of  his  son.  Lord  Grey,  in  1626. i"* 

Lands  of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton. — Robert  Roos  included  in  his  foundation 
charter  of  the  hospital  of  St.  Thomas  the  Martyr  of  Bolton  two  bovates  of  land 
in  the  vill  of  Kilham,  which  William  of  Paston  had  sold  to  him  and  which  were 
then  in  the  tenure  of  Robert  Niger.^^  So  far  as  we  know,  this  was  all  the  land 
ever  held  by  the  hospital  in  the  township,  though  it  seems  hardly  a  large 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1333-1337,  p.  167.  =  Ancient  Deeds,  vol.  v.  p.  162. 

'  Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  119. 

'  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls,  (Surtees  Soc.)  pp.  43-44. 

*  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  36,  ra.  75  ;  No.  96,  m.  296 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp.  438-439  ;  vol. 
xxviii.  pp.  46-47. 

^  Coram  Rege  Roll,  i<lo.  21,  m.  6;  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  1. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiv.  pp.  1141,  1148, 
1 157,  1 163  ;   vol.  xviii.  pp.  182,  266,  267. 

'  P.R.O.  Augmentation  Office,  Particulars  for  Grants,  No.  1985  ;  Originalia.  5  pars.,  7  Edw.  VI.  Rot.  18. 
Cf.  Caley  MS.  The  inclusion  of  a  corn  mill  in  this  property  suggests  that  the  lands  once  belonging  to  Nicholas 
of  Kilham  had  come  into  the  hands  of  Kirkham  priory. 

"  I.aing  Charters,  p.  244.  »  Cal.  oj  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  165.  '"  Lambert  MS. 

"  Monaslicon,  vol.  vi.  pt.  ii.  p.  692.  Confirmed  by  the  king  6th  April,  1227.  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls, 
vol.  i.  p.  30.     Cf.  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  36. 


enough  holding  to  justify  the  grant  of    free  warren,  which  the  master  was 
granted  in  all  his  demesne  lands  in  Kilham  in  1335.^ 

Sub-tenants  of  the  Manor. — For  a  township  of  its  size  we  have  a  good 
many  incidental  references  to  small  holdings  of  land  in  Kilham.  In  1306 
John  of  Greystead  and  his  wife  Pleasaunce  sued  David,  son  of  Thomas 
Baxter  of  Lanton,  for  dower  in  one  messuage,  30  acres  of  land  and  2  acres  of 
meadow  in  the  township,  to  which  David  pleaded  that  he  only  held  one 
toft,  two  bovates  and  four  acres  of  land  there,  and  so  far  as  this  holding  was 
concerned,  he  called  John,  son  and  heir  of  William  Heslerigg,  to  warrant, 
with  what  result  we  know  not.^  David  Baxter  died  in  1323  seised  of  three 
bondages  and  a  cottage  in  the  township  by  right  of  his  wife,  held  of  the  lord 
of  the  manor,^  and  in  1369  the  widow  of  his  grandson,  David,  was  allotted 
dower  in  six  husbandlands  and  one  cottar's  holding  in  Kilham,  this  being  held 
of  the  manor  by  service  of  i8d.  yearly.^  In  1589  another  of  this  name 
appears  in  the  township  in  the  person  of  John  Baxter,  who  with  his  wife 
Margaret  was  defendant  in  a  fine  with  regard  to  the  sixth  part  of  certain 
lands  there,^  but  long  before  this  we  may  suppose  that  the  original  Baxter 
property  had  passed  to  the  Manners  family.  The  first  earl  of  Rutland 
alluded  to  his  lands  there  in  his  will  dated  August  i6th,  1542,^  but  the  second 
earl  conveyed  them  together  with  the  manor  of  Etal  to  the  crown  in  1547," 
and  in  Elizabeth's  time  they  were  leased  to  Henry  Haggerston.^  In  1604 
they  consisted  of  126  acres  held  by  two  customary  tenants.^  When  Hugh 
Sampson  settled  a  messuage  and  land  in  Bamburgh  on  himself  and  Christine 
his  wife,  he  retained  in  fee  simple  a  messuage  and  land  in  Kilham,^**  and  Sir 
Alan  Heton  held  of  the  manor  in  Kilham  two  husbandlands,  worth  13s.  4d. 
each  in  usual  times,  but  at  the  moment  worth  nothing,  and  this  went  to  his 
daughter  Elizabeth  and  her  husband,  Sir  John  Fenwick.^^  In  1587  Thomas 
Forster,  the  younger,  of  Adderstone,  bequeathed  to  his  son  Matthew  'ids. 
purchas  land  in  Kylham.'^^ 

^  Cat.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  328. 

^  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  158,  m.  125;     No.  161,  in.  ijido  ;     No.  163,  m.  115 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol. 
xxxvii.  pp.  131,  292,  441.     The  form  in  which  the  defendant's  name  occurs  is  David  son  of  Thomas  le  Pestur. 
'  Cal.  oj  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.  *  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 

'  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  56.  '  North  Country  Wills,  vol.  i.  p.  187. 

'  P.R.O.  Augmentation  Office.     Deeds  of  Purchase  and  Exchange,  Box  F,  No.  23. 
'  P.R.O.  Augmentation  Office.  Particulars  for  Leases,  Northumberland,    File  4,  No.  26. 
•  Survey  of  the  Border,  1604,  p.  129.  ">  Inq.  A.Q.D.  File  ccclxxv.  No.  3. 

"  Inq.  p.m.  11  Ric.  II.  No.  31  ;     12  Ric.  II.  No.  28  ;    15  Ric.  II.  part  i.  No.  87 — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  163,  176,  237-238,  240. 

•-  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  302. 


An  independent  Freeholding.— Apart  from  the  property  of 
Nicholas,  son  of  Michael  of  Kilham,  of  which  mention  has  been  made,* 
there  is  evidence  of  another  holding  in  the  township  held  of  the  chief  lord 
of  the  fee.  In  1342  Thomas  Atterell  and  his  wife  Isabel  sold  to  Richard 
of  Kilham,  6  messuages,  100  acres  of  land,  15  acres  of  wood,  los.  rent  and  a 
quarter  of  a  mill  in  Kilham  and  Paston,  a  property  evidently  part  of  the 
inheritance  of  Isabel.^  Two  years  later  the  above  purchaser  sold  the  reversion 
of  5  messuages,  100  acres  of  land,  10  acres  of  meadows,  10  acres  of  wood 
and  a  quarter  of  a  mill  in  Kilham  and  Paston,  in  the  occupation  of  William 
Heron,  for  a  term  of  four  years,  to  William  of  Bewick,^  a  property  which 
corresponds  sufficiently  with  that  sold  by  Thomas  Atterell  and  his  wife  as 
to  suggest  that  it  is  identical  therewith.  William  of  Bewick  had  some 
trouble  with  his  tenant,  as  in  1350  he  was  suing  him  for  disseisin  in  these 

The  Tower  and  Border  Raids. — 'The  townshippe  of  Kylham 
conteyneth  xxvi  husband  lands  now'e  well  plenyshed  an  hathe  in 
yt  nether  tower  barmekyn  nor  other  fortresse  whiche  ys  greatt 
petye  for  yt  woulde  susteyne  many  able  men  for  defence  of  those 
borders  yf  yt  had  a  tower  and  barmekyn  buylded  in  yt  where 
nowe  yt  lyeth  waste  in  every  warre  and  then  yt  is  a  greatt  tyme 
after  or  yt  can  be  replenyshed  againe.'^  Thus  wrote  the  border  commis- 
sioners of  1541,  and  so  impressed  were  they  with  the  necessity  for  some  kind 
of  fortification,  that  later  in  their  report  they  returned  to  the  subject  and 
recommended  that  'a  new  tower  and  barmekyne  be  made  at  Kilham.'^ 
Undoubtedly  the  township  had  suffered  much  from  the  Scots,  and  practically 
no  valuation  of  its  lands  in  the  fifteenth  century  failed  to  reveal  a  state 
of  waste  and  destruction.'  It  was  open  to  attack  by  way  of  the  gap  in  the 
hills  through  which  Bowmont  water  flows,  and  a  typical  incident  is  described 
in  1521  when  the  Potts,  Rutherfords,  Douglasses  and  Robsons,  'with  their 
sleuth  hounds '  raided  the  town,  took  away  500  sheep  '  and  spoilzit  the  poir 
men  and  women  following  ther  gud.'^  It  suffered,  too,  in  the  invasion  of 
1513  but  for  a  time  had  peace,^  though  it  was  never  safe  from  such  forays 

'  See  page  i6i.  -  Pedes  Finium,  i6  Edw.  III.  No.  bo — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxLx.  pp.  136-137. 

'  Pedes  Finium  18  Edw.  III.  No.  69— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xxix.  pp.  150-151. 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties — 21-27  Edw.  III. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  p.  469. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541— Border  Holds,  p.  31.  "  Ibid.  p.  36.  '  Vide  supra. 

«  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII,  vol.  iii.  pt.  i.  p.  439.  '  Ibid.  vol.  xvi.  p.  478. 


as  that  in  1568,  which  cost  it  700  sheep,  though  later  reprisals  made  up  some 
of  this  loss.^  Similarly  the  place  was  open  to  Scots  who  had  made  things 
too  hot  for  them  across  the  border,  and  it  seems  that  the  Storeys,  so  well 
known  in  Glendale  in  the  latter  half  of  the  century,  first  settled  for  this 
reason  in  Kilham,  'where,'  so  runs  a  report  of  1583,  'they  yet  dwell  and  are 
a  great  surname. '^  It  is  possible  that  a  tower  was  built  before  1584  in  Kil- 
ham, at  least  the  site  of  one  is  marked  in  a  plan  of  that  year,^  but  if  so,  it 
did  not  prevent  serious  robberies  of  cattle  in  1596,*  nor  a  regular  pitched 
battle  in  April,  1597.  'On  the  14th  instant,'  wrote  Sir  Robert  Carey  to  the 
privy  council,  '  at  night  four  Scotsmen  broke  up  a  poor  man's  door  at  Kilham 
on  this  March,  taking  his  cattle.  The  town  followed,  rescued  the  goods,  sore 
hurt  three  of  the  Scots,  and  brought  them  back  prisoners.  The  fourth  Scot 
raised  his  country  meanwhile,  and  at  daybreak  40  horse  and  foot  attacked 
Kilham,  but  being  resisted  by  the  town,  who  behaved  themselves  very  hon- 
estly, they  were  driven  off  and  two  more  were  taken  prisoners.  Whereon  the 
Scots  raised  Tyvidale,  being  near  hand,  and  to  the  number  of  160  horse  and 
foot  came  back  by  seven  in  the  morning,  and  not  only  rescued  all  the 
prisoners,  but  slew  a  man,  left  seven  for  dead  and  hurt  ver}^  sore  a  great 
many  others.'^  Later  in  the  same  year  a  band  of  fifteen  Scots  'came  to 
Kilham  fields  and  cruelly  slew  Renian  Routledge  going  at  his  wayne,  bring- 
ing home  his  hay,  giving  him  twenty  wounds  and  not  leaving  him  till  dead.'^ 
There  is  little  suggestion  of  a  strong  house  or  tower  in  these  accounts,  but 
such  there  must  have  been,  as  part  of  it  at  least  was  standing  some  thirty 
years  ago,  and  is  said  to  have  resembled  closely  the  bastel  house  at 
Doddington,  though  it  was  built  on  a  far  smaller  scale.'' 

'  Cal.  oj  Stale  Papers,  Foreign,  1566-1568,  p.  504.  -  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  125. 

'Christopher  Dacre's  Plat  of  Caslles,   1584 — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79.     This   'plat'  was   probably  a 
sketch  of  the  defences  of  the  border  as  they  should  be  rather  than  as  they  were. 

*  Cal.  oj  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  165.  '  Cal.  oJ  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  296. 

•  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  441.  '  Bates,  Border  Holds,  pp.  53-54. 
Vol.    XI.  22 



Nestling  amidst  trees  at  the  foot  of  the  hills  and  looking  across  the 
Bowmont  water  at  Downham  on  the  opposite  shore,  Paston^  enjoys  a 
pleasant  situation,  despite  its  northern  aspect.^  It  was  a  member  of  the 
barony  of  Roos,^  and  doubtless  was  held  by  Walter  Espec  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  I.  During  the  anarchy  of  king  Stephen,  however,  it  seems  to  have 
been  for  a  time  in  the  hands  of  Henry,  son  of  David  I.,  king  of  Scots,  who 
some  time  between  1139  and  1152  gave  it  to  Eustace  Fitzjohn.*  It  was 
given  along  with  W^ark  by  Robert  Rocs  II.  to  his  son  Robert  before  1226,^ 
and  thenceforth  evidently  passed  with  the  rest  of  the  baron}'.  Throughout 
this  time  it  was  held  by  sub-tenants,  save  that  in  1344  William  Montague, 
then  lord  of  Wark,  held  tenements  in  the  vill  leased  for  a  term  of  two  years. ^ 

Descent  of  the  Manor. — It  is  probable  that  the  lords  of  the  township 
under  the  barony  were  the  same  throughout  as  those  of  Kilham,  since  an  inquisi- 
tion of  1300  found  that  Antechester  and  Paston  were  members  of  the  manor  of 
Kilham. '^  Practically  all  the  lords  of  Kilham  of  the  thirteenth  century  are  men- 
tioned either  as  confirming  grants  to  Kirkham  priory,  or  as  being  called  to 
warrant  in  some  case  before  the  courts,^  and  in  1304  John,  son  of  Robert  Archer, 
was  called  to  warrant,^  which  shows  that  the  sale  of  the  manor  of  Kilham 
to  the  Archer  family  included  the  township  of  Paston.  Likewise  we  may 
surmise,  that  when  the  Archers  sold  in  their  turn  to  Sir  John  Coupland  in 
1453,  the  same  inclusion  took  place.  This  is  the  more  probable  as  we  find, 
that  in  that  same  year  Sir  John  Coupland  and  Joan  his  wife  bought  a  small 
holding  in  Paston,  consisting  of  a  messuage,  40  acres  of  land  and  6  acres  of 

'  Earlier  Pachcstenam,  Paleslitn,  Paloxton,  Palleslon,  Parleston,  Palxston,  Palwiston,  Palston,  Paxton, 
Palkeslon,  Palxton,  Pawston.  O.E.  PcEllocesttin=Pa.elloc's  form,  PcbIIoc  being  a  diminutive  of  the  name 
Paelli  found  in  Liber  Vitae  Diinclmensis.  Pawston  is  first  found  in  1542  and  indicates  the  local 

*  The  Census  returns,  which  include  Shotton  and  Bowmont  Hill,  are  :  i8oi,  135  ;  181 1,  180  ;  1821,  209  ; 
1831,  207  ;  1841,  199  ;  1851,-  208  ;  1861,  189  ;  1871,  181  ;  1881,  172  ;  1891,  170  ;  1901,  125  ;  1911,  143. 
The  township  comprises  2354-526  acres. 

'  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211. 

'  Percy  Chartulary.  No.  Dcclviii.  pp.  290-291.  The  name  appears  as  'Pachestenam,'  which  the  editor 
of  the  chartulary  identifies  with  Paston  in  Kirknewton. 

'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  56.  "  Cat.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  viii.  p.  388. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  3  Ric.  U.  No.  I — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-45. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fols.  86,  87,  88,  89  ;  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  82,  m.  48— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol. 
xxvii.  pp.  414-415. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  153,  m.  183 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xi.x.  p.  454. 


meadow  from  Peter  Crabbe  and  Agnes  his  wife,  it  being  seemingly  of  the 
last  named's  inheritance.^  Further  in  1359  they  were  granted  3  messuages 
and  40  acres  of  land  forfeited  by  John  Trollop  for  partaking  in  Gilbert 
Middleton's  rebellion,  and  since  then  apparently  in  the  hands  of  the  crown.^ 
When  Joan  inherited  her  husband's  property,  she  consistently  described 
her  holding  in"  Paston  as  the  manor, ^  and  sold  it  as  such  to  Sir  Richard 
Arundel  in  1372.*  It  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Arundels  in  1404, ^  but  in 
1443  Sir  Ralph  Grey  held  'the  township  of  Palxston,  worth  nothing  yearly - 
in  these  days,'  of  the  king  in  socage  as  of  the  lordship  of  Wark.^  Thus 
the  overlordship  and  the  township  itself  had  come  to  be  in  the  same  hands. 
The  Greys  did  not  own  Paston  for  more  than  a  century,  as  in  1541  the 
border  commissioners  reported  that  '  the  towneshipe  of  Pawston  conteyneth 
xxvi.  husband  lands  now  plenyshed,  one  Garrade  Selbye  gent,  of  late  pur- 
chased this  towne  an  in  yt  hath  buylded  a  lytle  tower  without  a  barmekyn 
not  fully  fynyshed.'"  The  exact  date  of  this  purchase,  presumably  from 
the  Greys,  is  not  known,  but  it  had  been  accomplished  before  1535,  when  an 
official  reported  that  '  Yerard  Selbye,  of  Pawston,  two  miles  from  Scotland, 
may  dispend  ;^io  a  year.  He  may  serve  the  king  with  eight  horsemen. 
He  hath  builded  a  stone  house  now  lately  on  the  borders  and  plenished  the 
ground,  which  hath  laid  waste  sith  the  Scottish  field,  and  is  a  sharp  borderer.'^ 
His  son  William  was  not  so  well  thought  of  by  the  authorities,  since  among 
the  misdemeanours  attributed  to  Rowland  Forster  in  1562  was. that  'he 
concealed  the  laird  of  Pastion  in  his  house,  who  having  grievously  offended 
the  laws,  fled  from  authority.'*  This  William  Selby  did  not  hold  the  whole 
township,  for  one  Robert  Selby  and  John  M3lne  were  also  returned  as  land- 
owners there  in  1568,^"  a  year  in  which  the  inhabitants  saw  a  fight  of  some 

'  Pedes  Finium,  27  Edw.  III.  No.  97 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  204-206. 

=  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  223-224. 

'  Ca/.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  p.  39;  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137— Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxLx.  pp.  312-315. 

*  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1369-1374,  p.  448;  Pedes  Finium,  47  Edw.  III.  No.  158— Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxix.  pp.  312-315. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1401-1405,  pp.  309-310.  «  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  IV.  file  iii. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  31.  The  only  other  evidence  of  there  being  a  tower 
here  is  that  the  site  of  one  is  marked  in  Christopher  Dacre's  Plat  of  Castles,  i~c.,  1584 — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII .  vol.  ix.  p.  372.  It  was  doubtless  this  Gerard  Selby  of  Paston 
who  married  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  William  Swinhoe  ofCarhiU.  Foster,  Visitations,  p.  Il8,  or  according  to 
another  visitation  sister  of  William  and  daughter  of  Gilbert  Swinhoe.     Northern  Visitations,  p.  112. 

'  Cal.  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  1562,  p.  148. 

'"  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  pp.  Ixviii.,  bcix.      Robert  Selby  occurs  in  two  different 
places  in  the  record.     Paston  is  only  represented  by  a  '  P'  in  the  case  of  the  other  two  owners. 


fierceness  between  a  band  of  Scottish  marauders,  who  were  being  driven  off 
from  a  raid  on  Hethpool,  and  some  regular  soldiers,  the  last  charge  of  the 
English  forces  in  a  long  running  fight  being  at  '  Paston  town  end.'^  At  least 
a  portion  of  the  vill  belonged  to  the  Selbys  of  Branxton,  for  in  1581  John 
Selby  of  Branxton  included  lands  in  Paston  when  making  provision  for  the 
descent  of  his  estates.^  This  was  the  John  Selby,  who  with  William  Strother 
and  William  Selby  owned  the  vill  in  1580,^  the  last  named  being  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Paston  line,  who  is  again  mentioned  in  1590.*  It  was 
doubtless  this  William  Selby  who  was  the  laird  of  Paston  in  1595,  and 
scandalized  the  authorities  by  chatting  with  the  laird  of  Cessford  while  he 
had  a  drink  on  his  way  back  from  a  fruitless  attempt  to  slay  some  of  the 
Storeys,^  but  we  cannot  place  the  John  Selby,  'a  gentleman  dwelling  at 
Pawston,'  who  was  slain  there  in  the  following  year  while  defending  his 
home  against  Scottish  marauders.®  In  1625  a  Gerard  Selby  and  his  wife 
Dorothy  bought  the  Strother  lands  in  the  township,^  and  he  is  the  Gerard 
Selby  of  Harelaw,  who  by  his  will  dated  31st  January,  1632,  left  all  his 
lands  and  tithes  and  his  corn  mill  to  William  Selby,  the  younger  son  of  his 
brother  Wilham  Selby  of  Paston.  He  further  instructed  the  daughters  of 
his  deceased  nephew  John  Selby  to  convey  the  lands,  late  in  the  occupation 
of  their  father,  to  the  same  William  Selby  the  younger.^  It  seems  likely 
that  by  this  will  most  of  the  divided  portions  of  Paston  were  united  to  the 
manor,  and  that  the  Selbys  of  Paston  henceforth  owned  the  whole  vill. 
Gerard  and  William,  the  elder,  were  doubtless  the  sons  of  William  Selby  and 
grandsons  of  the  purchaser  of  the  estate,  and  as  Gerard  in  1632  described 
his  brother  as  of  Paston,  he  himself,  it  seems,  was  the  younger,  his  brother, 
having  probably  died  in  1599.^ 

William  Selby  brother  of  John  Selby,  was  thus  the  head  of  the  house 
and  claimed  to  be  heir  to  all  the  property,  but  his  nieces,  daughters  of  John 
Selby,  led  by  Arthur  Grey,  the  husband  of  one  of  them,  claimed  the  estate 

'  Cal.  0/  Slate  Papers,  Foreign,  156O-1568,  p.  515.  '  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  45. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  14.  *  Ibid.  p.  362. 

'  Report  of  Sir  John  Carey— Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  xlvi ;     Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  36. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  137,  147.  In  a  deed  of  1629  there  are  mentioned  John  Selby  of 
Pawston,  WilUam  Selby  of  Pawston  and  Gerard  Selby  of  Harelaw.      Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  206. 

'  Paston  Deeds.  «  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  ii.  pp.  114-116. 

'  In  1599  administration  granted  of  the  will  of  William  Selby  of  Pawston  to  Jane  his  wife,  his 
children  being  John,  William  and  Jane,  all  under  age.  {Raine,  Lib.  Adm.  vol.  i.  p.  165.)  John  Selby  appears 
as  a  freeholder  in  Paston  in  1628.  (Freeholders  in  Northumberland — Arch.  Aeliana,  6.S.  vol.  ii.  p.  321.)  His 
wiU  is  dated  7th  February,  1O29,  and  inventory  is  dated  lyth  April,  1G30.    (Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  ii.  p.  155.) 



(First  Line.) 
[?Wii,liam]  Selby,  of  the  parish  of  Norham  =  

Gerard  Selby,  purchased   Paston  =  Elizabeth, 

before     154 1,    and     built     the  daughter 

tower  there,   which  was  as  yet  of  Gilbert 

unfinished    in    that    year    (e)  ;  Swinhoe 

will    dated   30th    June,    1549  ;  of  Cornhill 

to      be     buried     in      Norham  :    and  Gos- 

church  (d).  j    wick  (g). 

Robert  Selby,  vicar  of 
Norham,  1536-65  ; 
vicar  of  Berwick, 
1541-65  ;  named  in 
brother's  will  (d)  ; 
died  before  8th 
June,  1565. 

William  Selby,  named 
in  brother's  will 
(d) ;  probably  eldest 
brother  and  of 
Branxton ;  ancestor 
of  Selby  of  Twizell 
Castle  (i). 

George  Selby, 
in  brother's 
wiU  {d}. 

William  Selby  of  Paston,  son  and  heir,  and  executor  of  father's  = 
will  [d]  ;  will  dated  26th  May,    1603,  proved   1606  ;    his  'messu- 
age of  Pastowne  towne'  leased  to  his  daughter-in-law,  Jane  (I). 

Margery,  mentioned 
in  her  husband's 
will  (I). 

Fortune,  mentioned 
in  her  father's 
will  (d). 

William  Selby  (d)  =  Jane  {k)  Toby  Selby, 

of       Paston;  mentioned  underage 

administration  in    father-  1603  (l). 

granted    31st   !         in    -  law's 
August,  1599(A).  will  (l).    • 

Gerard  Selby  of  Harelaw,  party  to  deeds  19th  =  Dorothy, 
April,  1619  (a),  and  12th  September,  1625  (a) ;  party  to 
described  as  uncle  of  John  Selby  of  Paston  (d)  deed  12th 
(?was  this  Gerald  Selby  of  Harelaw  who  made  September, 
his  will  31st  January,  1632,  proved  1663)  (d).        1625  (a). 

John  Selby  of  Paston, 
under  age  1599  (k), 
will  dated  7th  Sep- 
tember, 1629  (d)  ;  in- 
ventory 19th  April, 
1630  (d). 

Eleanor,  party 
to  deed  i6th 
June,  1633, 
then  of  Ber- 
wick, widow 


William  Selby,  of  Harelaw,  under  age  1599  (A),  : 
acquired  Paston  26th  June,  1633,  t>y  pur- 
chase from  brother's  widow  and  daughters 
(a) ;  sole  executor  of  Gerard  Selby  of  Hare- 
law, 1632  ;  party  with  wife  Mary,  and  son 
William  to  deed  20th  February,  1650  (a). 

:  Mary 

to  deed 

Dorothy,  dau.  and 
co-heir,  married 
before  i 6th 
Nov.,  1636  (a). 

John  Reed  (a),  ?son 
of  Sir  Wm.  Reed 
of  Fenham  in 

Anne,  dau.  and  : 
co-heir,    mar. 
before       i6th 
Nov.,  1636(a). 

:  Arthur  Elizabeth,  dau.  and 

Grey  co-heir,  under  age 

of  and       unmarried 

Wark  (a)  i6th  Jan.,  1633(a). 

Jane,  dau    and 
co-heir,  named 
in    father's 
wiU  [d) 

William  Selby  of  Paston  ;  in  Michaelmas  : 
term,    1684,  exhibited  a    bill    in  Chan- 
cery ;  died  circa  1687  (a). 

Dorothy  Lauder,  bond  of  marriage  4th  September,  1678,  as  Dorothy 
Lauder,  alias  Selby,  widow  ;  married  at  Norham,  31st  July, 
1679  ;  died  at  Harelaw  ;  buried  3rd  May,  1705  (6). 

Gerard  Selby,  aged  3  at  father's  death  ;  his  mother  in  1693  revived  =  Sarah,  daughter  of  Gabriel  Hall  of  Catcleugh  ; 
suit  in  chancery  begun  by  father  (a) ;  captured  by  rebels,  1715,  bond  of  marriage  22nd  Jan.,  1712  (a)  ;  party 

and  carried  prisoner  to  Kelso;  buried  3rd  August,  1720,  aged  to  deed  3rd  April,  1775  (a)  ;     died  at  Hare- 

36(?)  (b,  c) ;  will  dated  24th  July,  1720  (a);  proved   1721  (3).      1      law,  aged  83  (c)  ;  buried  ist  Jan.,  1778  (6). 

Gabriel  Selby,  of  Paston,  lieut.- 
colonel  in  Northumberland 
militia  (h)  ;  died  at  Paston, 
aged  68  (c)  ;  buried  12th  June, 
1785  (h)  ■  ob.  s.p. 

=  Anne,  daughter  of  William,  lord 
Cranstoun,  married  August 
15th,  1759  ;  died  at  Paston, 
aged  50  ;  buried  23rd  August, 
1769  (b,  c,  /). 

(a)  Paston  Deeds 




Cornhill  Registers. 

Monumental     Inscriptions,     Cornhill,     printed 

with  notes  in  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club, 

\"ol.  xxii,  p.  2.S1 . 
Raine,  Testamenla. 
Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  31. 

Gerard  Selby, 
named  in 
father's  will ; 
died  1 72 1,  aged 
i\  years  (c). 

I    I 



Margaret,  co-heir, 
unmarried,  Feb., 
aged  74. 

Elizabeth,  co-heir, 
unmarried  before 
October,  1791. 

(/)  Newcastle  CouranI,  2nd  September,  1769. 

(g)  Northern  Visitations,  p.  112. 

(h)  Adamson,  Notices  of  Northumberland  Militia, 

p.  10. 

(i)  Rainc,  North  Durham,  pedigree,  p.  315. 

(A)  Raine,  Lib.  .-Idm.  vol.  i.  p.  105. 

(/)  Kaine,  Testamenta,  vol.  ii.  p.  181. 



SKLBY.  OF    PAS  I  ON. 

(Second  Line.) 

Mary,    daughter    of  =  George  Seldy  of  Alnwick,  fourth  son  of  George  =  Dorothy,  widow  of  Christopher  Carr 

~  '  "  ----- __  -     _  -  ^j    Alnwick,     and      daughter     of 

Edward  Cook  of  Togston,  baptised 
at  Warkworth  25th  .\pril,  1714  : 
bond  of  marriage  30th  September, 
1752;  died  25th  January,  1796, 
aged  83. 

Prideaux  Sclby  of 
15eal,  married  at 
Kyloe  23rd  July, 
1745;  buried  i6th 
September,  1 750 

Selby  of  Holy  Island,  baptised  at  Holy  Island 
1 8th  January,  1719/20;  articled  12th  July, 
1737  to  Richard  Grieve  of  Alnwick,  attorney  ; 
admitted  free  of  the  borough  of  Alnwick  4th 
April,  1742,  died  ist  March,  1806,  aged  86  (b)  ; 
will  dated  gth  May,  1804. 

George  Selby  of  Foxton, 
parish  of  Lesbury  ; 
baptised  20th  August, 
1746  (6)  ;  married  at 
J,esbury  15th  Dec- 
ember, 1778;  died  at 
Alnwick  loth  June, 
1815,  aged  69  (c)  s.p. 

Ellen,  widow 
of  [Thomas] 
widow  15th 
July,    1829. 

Prideaux  Selby,  lieutenant, 
5th  Foot  ;  baptised  21st 
December,  1 747  (6)  ;  settled 
at  York  in  Upper  Canada, 
in  which  province  he  re- 
ceived a  grant  of  land  (a)  and 
died  at  Toronto  1 2th  May, 

Elizabeth  Alder  of  London, 
but  of  Northumbrian 
descent,  of  Great  Russell 
Street,  Bloomsbury,  when 
she  made  her  will  26th 
June,  1S17;  afterwards  of 
Little  Chelsea ;  will  proved 
13th  February,  1827  (a). 

Prideaux  Selby  of  Clifton, : 
near  Ashbourne,  Derby- 
shire ;  born  circa  1 780  ; 
died     at     Maidenhead 
22nd  June,  1829. 

:Mary,  daughter  of    George,  son  of  Mr. 

Beaumont  ;    born   9th  Prideaux       Selby 

September,     1777  (a);  of  London  ;  buried 

married  1805  ;  19th          October, 

died  6th  August,  1854.  1777  (b). 

Elizabeth,  wife  of  William  Derenzy, 
lieut. -colonel, of  Stonyhill,  Alnwick. 

Mary,  wife  of  John  Rickards  of  Col- 
chester, named  in  her  mother's 

Henry  CoUingwood  Selby  of  Swansiield  and  =  Frances,  daughter  of  Prideaux 

Paston,  baptised  4th  June,  1749  (6) 
admitted  to  Grays  Inn  8th  November, 
1770;  clerk  of  the  Peace  of  Middlesex  for 
60 years;  died 9th  February,  1839  (c)  ;  will 
dated  15th  July,  1829  (a). 

Wilkie ;  baptised  at  Dodding- 
ton  1 8th  September,  1764  ; 
married  there  21st  August, 
1789;  died  in  childbirth  ist 
August,  1790  (c). 

Mary,  wife  of  Thomas  Donald- 
son of  Cheswick,  captain  31st 
Regiment ;  married  14th 
September,  1791  (6);  of  Aln- 
wick, a  widow  when  she 
made  her  will  2nd  March, 


Frances  Wilkie  Selby,  only  child,  born   ist  August,  1790;  first  wife  of  Charles  Thorp,  D.D., 
and  Archdeacon  of  Durham  ;  died  21st  April,  181 1  s.p. 

rector  of  Ryton 

Prideaux  Selby  of  Swansfield  and  Paston  ;  born  3rd  September,  1810  {d}  ; 
entered  at  Gray's  Inn  20th  January,  1827;  married  3rd  November,  1840, 
St.  George's,  Hanover  Square  ;  died  5th  April,  1872  [d)  ;  buried 
Brompton  cemetery  ;  will  dated  5th  April,  1871  ;  proved  2nd  May, 

Harriet  Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
Sir  William  B.  Proctor,  Bart, 
admiral  R.N.  ;  died  23rd 
April,  1893,  aged  78;  buried 
Brompton  Cemetery. 

I    I    I    i    I    I    I 
Henry  CoUingwood  Selby,  born  1812;  admitted  to  Gray's  Inn  15th  April, 

1850  ;  Queen's  advocate,  Ceylon  ;  died  in  Paris  in  1856.  4^ 
George  Selby,  born  18 14;    Madras  Artillery,  General  in  the  army  ;    died 

1884  ;  buried  Fleet,  Hampshire. 4^ 
William  Beaumont  Selby,  born  1st   March,   1816  ;    captain  R.N.  ;    died 

1876  ;  buried  Exeter  s.p. 
James  Hall  Selby,   entered  at  Gray's  Inn  13th  November,   1833  ;    died 

24th  May,  1847  at  Quebec,  unmarried. 
John  Selby,  born   2nd  September,  1820  ;   died  26th  November,    1865,  at 

Cookham,    Berkshire,    unmarried  ;     letters    of    administration,     loth 

December,  1867. 
Walter  Selby,  born  1825  ;   died  unmarried,  buried  Exeter. 
Octavius  Seiby,  born  5th  August,  1S22  ;  died  aged  18. 

I  I  M  I  I 

Mary,  wife  of Davison  {a). 

Elizabeth,  wife  of  Thomas  Rudd(fl). 
Louisa    Wilson,    wife    of     Charles 

Beaumont  (a). 
Hannah,  married   Beaumont; 

and   second.    Rev.    L.    Sampson, 

Fellow  of  King's,  Cambridge,  and 

rector  of  Prescott,  Lancashire  {a). 
Amelia,     wife    of     Fred.     Thomas 

Ward  of  Maidenhead  (a). 
Frances    Catherine,    wife   of  B.   K. 

McDermot,     an     officer     in     the 

Indian  army  (a). 



Beauchamp  Prideaux  Selby  of  Paston ;  =  Fanny,  daughter  of  Joseph      William  Henry  Colling-  =  Alice,  daughter  of 

born  23rd  August,  1841;  of  St. 
John's  College,  Cambridge  ;  B.A., 
1865,  admitted  to  Inner  Temple, 
January,  1868 ;  died  6th  November, 
1918:  will  proved  2nd  May,  1919. 

Pocklington  Senhouse 
of  Netherhall  ;  married 
gth  August,  1 88 1  at 
Maryport  ;  died  23rd 
March,  1898. 

wood  Selby,  com- 
mander R.N.  ;  born 
2  2nd  September,  1842; 
died  at  Scutari,  20th 
February,  1882. 

Robert  Clutter- 
buck  of  Hinx- 
well,  Herts, 
married  June, 

Beauchamp  Henry  Selby,  born  4th  June, 
1882;  captain  Northumberland  Fusiliers; 
died  2ist  September,  1914,  of  wounds 
received  in  action  near  Vailly,  department 
of  Aisne,  on  the  preceding  day. 

Prideaux  Joseph  Selby, 
born  1st  June,  1885  ;  died 
at  Gibraltar  of  wounds 
received  in  action,  3rd 
October,  19 15. 

I  I    I 

Prideaux    Robert       Rose  Mary, 
Selby,  bom  April,       Dorothy. 
1873,     succeeded 
his  uncle,  1918. 

Prideaux     George     Selby,     born 
1844;    died   2ist  October,   1908; 
Cemetery.  ^ 

Oliver  Selby,  born  13th  May,   1850 
ember,  1904  ;  buried  Retford,  .j. 

I    I    I    I    I 
16th     September,  Edith  Harriet,  wife  of  Henry  A.  Campbell, 

buried  Brompton  Maud  Emily,  living  unmarried  1915. 

Evelyn,  living  unmarried  1915. 
;    died  7th   Sept-  Gertrude,  living  unmarried  1915. 

Beatrice  Mar>',  wife  of  Richard  Dumford,  C.B. 

(a)  M.  B.  P.  Selby's  Family  Papers. 

(b)  Alnwick  Register. 

(c)   Monumental  Inscription,  Alnwick. 

{d)  Monumental  Inscription,  Kirknewton  Church. 

and  he  had  to  agree  to  pay  them  £500.  A  part  of  this  sum  he  borrowed  on 
mortgage  from  Arthur  Grey  himself,  and  when  his  son  Wilham  succeeded 
in  1666/  the  mortgagees  secured  his  ejection.  Arthur  Grey  was  now  dead, 
and  his  son  Edward  followed  him  to  the  grave  in  1667,  bequeathing  his  rights 
in  Paston  to  his  nephew  Thomas.  In  1685  William  Selby  began  a  suit  to 
recover  his  patrimony,  basing  his  claim  on  the  bequest  of  Gerard  Selby,  which 
he  maintained  was  to  himself.  He  declared  that  his  father  had  no  right 
of  alienation,  and  that  the  mortgagees  had  recovered  both  capital  and 
interest  by  the  enjoyment  of  the  estate  for  twenty  years.  He  died  before 
judgment  had  been  given,  but  the  suit  continued  in  the  interests  of  his 
infant  son,  Gerard,  who  obtained  leave  to  redeem  the  estate  by  the  payment 
of  £500,  though  this  had  not  been  accomplished  by  171 1  owing  to  difficulties 
arising  from  the  transference  of  the  mortgage  into  several  hands. ^  This 
Gerard  Selby  died  in  1721,  leaving  Paston  to  his  widow,  Sarah,  for  life  with 
remainder  to  his  eldest  son  Gabriel.^  Sarah  purchased  in  1732  from  James 
Mills,  formerly  of  Presson,  a  portion  of  the  township  which  had  hitherto 

'  Inventory  of  Wilham  Selby  of  Harelaw,  19th  October,  1666.  (Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  iv.  p.  39.) 
Administration  granted  to  Mary  his  widow.  (Raine,  Lib.  Adm.  vol.  ii.  p.  61.)  The  estate  belonged  to  William 
Selby  in  1663  with  a  rent  roll  of  /loo,  but  Thomas  Watson  owned  part  of  Harelaw.  (Rate  Book,  1663. 
— Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278.) 

^  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  490,  No.  45  ;  bundle  161,  No.  34  ;  bundle  374,  Nos 
42.  43- 

'  Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  v.  pp.  11-12. 


not  belonged  to  the  family,  and  she  conveyed  it  to  her  son  Gabriel.  The 
estate  became  seriously  involved,  and  in  1780  Sir  Richard  Hoare,  the  mort- 
gagee, gave  notice  to  foreclose.  Matters  dragged  on  till  1787,  whon  the 
only  surviving  representatives  of  the  family  were  Margaret  and  Elizabeth, 
unmarried  sisters  of  Gabriel  Selby.  Finally  in  1789  Sir  Richard  Hoare  sold 
the  estate  to  Henry  Collingwood  Selby,  who  thereby  established  the  second 
line  of  the  Selby  family  in  Paston,  whose  descendants  held  the  property  till 
May,  1921,  when  the  mansion  and  Paston  farm  was  sold  to  Mr.  E.  E.  P. 
Taylor  of  Cornhill.^ 

The  mansion  house  of  to-day  is  a  pleasant  modern  building  built  round 
the  old  tower,  the  vault  of  which  has  been  converted  into  a  cellar.  At 
Harelaw  there  still  stands  a  low  two  storey  house,  which,  according  to  an 
inscription  over  the  lintel,  dates  back  to  Elizabethan  times. 

Lands  held  in  Mortmain. — No  fewer  than  four  distinct  religious 
foundations  held  lands  at  some  time  or  another  in  Paston.  The  hospital 
of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton,  by  grant  of  Robert  Roos,  was  possessed  of  half  a 
carucate  of  land  and  the  service  of  two  bovates  of  land,  which  about  1225 
had  been  held  in  fee  and  inheritance  by  Robert  Capgrave.-  Of  this  holding 
we  know  nothing  further,  save  that  in  1335  the  king  of  special  grace  granted 
the  warden  free  warren  in  his  demesne  lands  in  Paston.^  Both  the  Templars 
and  the  Hospitallers  claimed  liberties  in  the  township  during  the  Quo  Warranto 
inquiries  of  1293.*  No  other  reference  to  the  property  of  the  latter  is  found, 
and  the  former  seem  to  have  conveyed  what  lands  they  had  to  Kirkham 
priory  in  return  for  an  annual  rent.  Thus  quite  early  in  the  thirteenth 
century  William  Templar  gave  to  the  canons  of  Kirkham  and  the  knights 
of  the  Temple  two  bovates  of  land  and  a  toft  and  croft  of  three  acres,  which 
he  had  bought  from  Waltheof  of  Paston,^  a  gift  confirmed  by  Almeric  St.  Maur, 
master  of  the  Templars  in  England,  on  condition  that  a  rent  of  2od.  was 
paid  annually  to  his  order.  Later,  one  Patrick  and  his  mother  Edith  granted 
a  toft  held  of  the  Templars  by  way  of  rounding  off  the  former  concession, 

'  Paston  Deeds. 

"  Monasticon,  vol.  vi.  pt.  ii.  p.  692  ;     Cal.  of  Charier  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  30 ;   vol.  iv.  p.  67  ;   cf.  vol.  i.  p.  56. 

'  Cal.  of  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  328.  Thomas  of  Bamburgh,  the  warden  of  the  time,  from  his  youth  up 
had  served  first  Edward  II.  an<l  tlien  Edward  111.,  and  the  latter  had  used  his  influence  to  the  utmost  to 
secure  his  appointment  to  the  wardenship  in  1331.       Cal.  oj  Close  Rolls,  1330-1333,  pp.  118-119,  281-282. 

*  Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  130-131,  162-163;  Assi2e  Roll,  20  and  21  Edw.  I. — -Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  383-385,  424-425. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  87. 


a  proceeding  also  confirmed  by  the  master,  who  stipulated  for  a  rise  of  4d 
in  the  rent,  making  the  total  annual  sum  due  from  Kirkham  priory  to  the 
order  2s.i     Thus,  while  nominally  landowners,  the  Templars  in  reality  only 
drew  a  rent  of  2s.  a  year  from  the  township. 

Kirkham  priory  held  quite  a  considerable  amount  of  property  in  Paston, 
thanks  to  a  series  of  small  gifts  and  purchases.  Thus  the  above  named 
Waltheof  together  with  one  Utred  presented  two  acres  of  meadow,  lying 
towards  Shotton,  to  the 'houseofCarham,' and  together  with  a  certain  Geoffrey 
another  two  acres  of  meadow  in  Gildenstreth  to  the  priory. ^  Waltheof's 
son,  Henry,  added  yet  another  two  acres  of  meadow  hard  by  his  father's  gift 
in  Schottonhalgh,  i|  acres  of  arable  in  Edmundeschale  and  half  an  acre  in 
Giddehusefunter,^  and  Utred's  son  William  confirmed  his  father's  surrender 
of  any  claims  he  had  on  William  Templar's  holding,  already  the  property 
of  the  priory,  adding  an  acre  of  meadow  towards  Shotton.*  William 
Templar's  daughter,  Matilda,  also  joined  her  husband,  Thomas  Colman,in  sur- 
rendering their  rights  in  an  acre  of  pasture  in  Schottonhalgh  which  they 
held  of  the  priory,  and  after  his  death  surrendered  her  toft  and  croft  and  half 
an  acre  in  the  aforenamed  meadow.^  Another  gift,  more  or  less  contem- 
porary with  this  since  it  was  confirmed  both  by  Henry  Manners  and  Henry 
son  of  Waltheof,  was  one  made  by  Patrick,  son  of  Orm,  consisting  of  an  acre 
and  a  rood  and  toft  and  croft  hard  by  the  donor's  house,  an  acre  on  Emdilau, 
another  in  Edmundeschale,  a  third  towards  the  Cloh  and  three  roods  in 
Topst — in  all  five  acres.  The  same  donor  later  conveyed  to  the  canons 
another  four  acres,  of  which  two  lay  in  Edmundeschale,  one  on  the  banks  of 
the  stream  which  fed  Mindrum  mill  and  one  lying  by  the  Kerlingburne, 
together  with  a  toft  and  croft  of  half  an  acre  in  the  village.^  It  may  have 
been  the  same  Patrick,  though  here  we  are  given  nothing  but  his  Christian 
name,  who  conveyed  an  acre  of  meadow  in  Gildenstreth  to  the  canons  ;^  it 
was  certainly  his  son  who  in  return  for  id.  in  lieu  of  all  service  confirmed  a 
grant  of  14  acres  in  Paston  fields  and  two  acres  of  meadow  in  Gildenstreth 
made  by  Alan  Torn,  whose  mother,  Agatha,  wife  of  Philip  of  Paston,  resigned 
her  rights  of  dower  in  a  bovate  and  half  an  acre  of  land  to  the  canons  for  an 
annuity  of  3s.,  and  whose  widow,  Emma,  later  did  likewise,  so  far  as  the 
lands  contained  in  her  husband's  gift  were  concerned,  on  the  same  terms.^ 
This  Philip  of  Paston,  stepfather  of  Alan  Torn,  may  be  identical  with  the 

1  Kirkham  CartnUuy,  fol.  87.     »   /i,(/.  foi.  88.        '  Ibid.        *  Ibid.     '  Ibid.       «  Ibid.      '  IbiJ.       «  Ibid. 
Vol.   XI  23 


Philip  who  gave  the  canons  a  toft  with  the  buildings  standing  thereon,^  and 
he  was  doubtless  contemporary  with  Adam  of  Paston,^  who  confirmed  his 
gifts,  and,  as  became  a  fairly  important  landowner,  made  grants  of  his  own 
to  the  canons,  including  a  toft  and  croft  with  five  acres  pertaining  thereto,^ 
all  his  meadow  in  Shottonhalgh  lying  in  three  different  parts  thereof,*  a 
rood  and  a  quarter  in  Scamelanside  next  to  the  land  of  Bolton  hospital.^ 
the  toft  and  croft  held  by  Hugh  Surd^  and  pasture  for  400  sheep  with  a  site 
near  the  Scamelhowbourne  for  a  sheep  fold.'  At  least  two  of  these  gifts  were 
confirmed  by  Michael  of  Kilham,  lord  of  the  manor,  who  in  addition  granted 
the  service  of  a  carucate  of  land  with  a  toft  pertaining  thereto,  held  by 
Robert,  son  of  William,  son  of  Humphrey — saving  a  rent  of  6s.  for  the  arable 
part  of  the  holding—  an  acre  and  three  roods  of  meadow  in  Kingesmedum  and 
free  access  for  the  canons'  sheep  from  the  sheepfold  of  Mirebelstuel  to  the 
common  pasture  of  Kilham.^  His  son,  Nicholas  of  Kilham,  added  certain 
rights  of  common  pasture.^  No  other  lord  of  the  manor  gave  anything  to 
the  canons,  save  that  at  an  earlier  date  than  this  Henry  Manners  conveyed 
all  that  part  of  his  meadow  on  Harelawe  known  as  Kingsmead.^" 

In  addition  to  these  donors,  who  are  more  or  less  identifiable,  there 
was  a  number  whose  names  are  met  with  in  no  other  connection.  Thus 
Walter,  the  clerk,  gave  half  an  acre  of  meadow  in  Shottonhalgh,^^  another 
cleric,  Robert  the  chaplain  of  Mindrum,  three  acres  of  meadow  in  Alk 
towards  Shotton  with  pasture  for  160  sheep  and  their  lambs  and  twelve 
beasts — a  grant  confirmed  by  Robert  of  Paston  and  Henry  of  Paston  1- — and 
William  son  of  Amfred  an  acre  of  meadow  in  Shottonhalgh  next  to  that 
of  Walter,  the  clerk,^^  while  Robert  son  of  Robert  of  Liston  surrendered 
the  land  which  he  held  of  the  canons  consisting  of  an  acre  at  Hendelawe, 
three  roods  at  Moreflate,  two  acres  in  Edmundeschale,  two  roods  at  Hare- 
cloht,  half  an  acre  in  Gildenstreth  and  a  toft  and  croft  containing  an  acre 
and  one  rood.  Simon  son  of  Stephen  of  Shotton  did  likewise  in  respect 
of  four  acres  of  land  lying  in  Edmundeschale  between  Bowmont  water 
and  the  lands  of  Henry,  son  of  Waltheof.^*  Adam,  son  of  Henry  of  Paston, 
and  John  of  St.  Oswald's  were  both  concerned  in  the  gift  of  an  acre  of  land  lying 
in  le  Held,^^  William,  son  of  Roger  of  Paston,  and  his  wife  Emma,  daughter 

»  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  88.  -  See  page  i8o.  =  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  87.  *  Ibid.  fol.  88. 

»  Ibid.  fols.  88-89.  «  Ibid.  fol.  89.  '  Ibid.  fol.  87.  «  Ibid.  fol.  89.  »  Ibid.  fol.  86. 

">  Ibid.  fol.  85.  "  Ibid.  fol.  88.  >=  Ibid.  '^  Ibid.         "  Ibid.  fol.  89.         "  /j,-^ 


of  Thomas  of  Paston,  gave  the  toft  which  had  been  the  latter's  marriage 
portion  from  her  mother,^  and  a  certain  John  of  Paston  seems  to  have 
acted  for  others  in  conveying  a  toft  and  an  acre  of  land  on  two  separate 
occasions. 2  The  story  of  these  acquisitions  by  the  priory  of  Kirkham  is 
brought  to  a  close  by  a  series  of  grants  by  William  of  Paston,  who  in  three 
separate  charters  gave  a  toft  and  croft  containing  an  acre  of  land,  seven  acres 
of  land  and  pasture  for  2  horses,  8  beasts,  100  sheep,  5  sows  and  i  boar,  a 
toft  and  croft  containing  three  acres  of  land  lying  in  Edmundeschale, 
I  acre  of  meadow  in  Gildenstreth  and  common  pasture  for  100  sheep,  8  oxen, 
4  cows  and  2  horses,  and  finally  3  acres  of  land  and  3  acres  of  meadow  in 
Alk  towards  Shotton  and  pasturage  for  100  sheep  with  their  lambs,  12  beasts 
and  3  horses.  This  last  grant  was  confirmed  by  the  donor's  son,  John,^  and 
is  so  similar  to  that  of  Robert,  the  chaplain  of  Mindrum,  as  to  be  probably 

After  the  dissolution  of  the  religious  houses  the  Paston  estates  of  Kirk- 
ham remained  for  some  time  in  the  hands  of  the  crown.  They  were  sold 
to  the  Strothers  after  1565,*  and  before  1579,  when  lands  in  Paston  appear 
in  the  entail  made  by  William  Strother  of  Kirknewton.^  In  this  family 
they  remained  till  1625,  when  John  Strother,  Clement  Strother  and  others 
granted  'the  tenements  in  Pawston,  late  in  the  possession  of  Clement 
Strother,  and  tithes  of  com  and  grain  in  the  town,  fields  and  territories  of 
Pawston,  which  tenements  and  tythes  were  parcel  of  the  rectory  of  Kirk- 
newton,'  to  Gerard  Selby  and  Dorothy  his  wife  and  Gerard's  heirs.^  Thus 
the  scattered  property  of  Kirkham  priory  in  the  township  passed  to  the 
owners  of  the  manor. 

Sub-tenants  of  the  Manor. — Quite  a  number  of  small  holders  of  land 
appear  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  which  suggests  that  the 
manor  was  not  kept  in  the  hands  of  the  lord,  at  any  rate  till  it  became  the 
property  of  Sir  John  Coupland.  Thus  in  1242  Beatrice,  widow  of  Thomas  of 
Kilham,  sued  her  brother-in-law,  Walter  of  Paston,  for  dower  in  two  bovates 
of  land  in  Paston.  The  defendant  called  to  warrant  Henry,  son  of  Jolm  of 
Paston,  who  was  ordered  to  satisfy  the  plaintiff's  claim. '^  This  suggests  that 
Thomas  had  subinfeudated  two  bovates  of  his  Paston  demesne  to  Henry  of 

>  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  88.                                       ^  Ibid.  fol.  89.  '  Ibid. 

*  Ministers  Accounts,  7-8  Eliza.heth—\V aierford  Documents,  vol.  I.  p.  63.  '  Laing  Charters,  p.  2^^. 

«  Newcastle  Public  Librarj-.  Caley  MS. 

'  Curia  Regis  Rolls,  Nos.  124,  125,  130— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxi.  pp.  225,  227-228,  233,  239-2^0. 


Paston  or  his  father,  who  in  turn  had  enfeoffed  Thomas  of  Paston.  Similarly 
Thomas  of  Kilham's  son,  Michael,  evidently  provided  for  his  younger  son, 
William,  by  giving  him  certain  rents  and  lands  in  Paston,  in  which  his  widow 
Idonea  in  lago  claimed  dower. ^  In  1293  this  William  increased  his  holding  by 
the  acquisition  of  34  acres  of  land  in  the  township  from  Thomas  of  Caverton 
and  Christine  his  wife,^  and  in  1297  was  involved  in  litigation  with  Robert 
of  Trollop  with  regard  to  a  messuage  and  24  acres  of  land  in  Paston,  which 
the  latter  claimed  as  his  right. ^  William's  brother,  Nicholas  of  Kilham, 
also  had  a  messuage,  two  bovates  of  land,  four  acres  of  meadow  and  2od. 
rent  there,  which  he  acquired  from  Robert  Archer,  who  had  purchased  the 
manor  of  Kilham  from  John,  son  of  Michael  of  Kilham.^  Ten  acres  of  this 
passed  to  Patrick,  son  of  William  of  Kilham,^  and  the  rest  of  his  property 
went  to  his  sister,  Aline  Sweethope,  who  sold  some  of  it  to  Adam,  son  of 
Thomas  of  Kilham,^  the  validity  of  the  former  of  which  sales  was  later 
contested  by  Aline's  daughter  and  heir  Avis,  wife  of  William  of  Bolton.^ 

Apart  from  the  lords  of  Kilham  and  their  relations,  there  was  another 
family  which  can  be  traced  as  holding  lands  in  Paston  through  three  genera- 
tions. The  first  of  these  was  represented  by  Adam  of  Paston,  who  in  1256 
sued  Robert  Roos  and  Adam  of  Gadelef  under  a  suit  of  novel  disseisin 
with  regard  to  his  free  holding  in  Paston,  and  further  brought  an  action 
against  the  second  of  these  defendants  for  withholding  the  services  due  from 
lands  held  of  the  plaintiff.^  In  the  same  year  he  had  trouble  with  one  of 
his  villeins  named  Gileminus,  whom  he  ejected  from  his  house  and  who 
retaliated  by  burning  it  down  on  the  following  night. ^  By  1279  this  Adam 
had  been  succeeded  by  his  son  Thomas, ^^  who  in  1290  was  sued  by  Michael 
of  Kilham's  widow  for  dower  in  20s.  rent  in  Paston. ^^  This  Thomas  of 
Paston  was  accused  in  1291  of  assisting  to  disseise  his  sister  Margaret  of  2| 
acres  in  the  vill,i^  and  two  years  later  was  again  in  the  courts  in  a  somewhat 

1  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  8i,  m.  72  ;  No.  82,  m.  48  ;  No.  98,  in.  71 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  408- 
409,  414-415.  533-535- 

2  Pedes  Finiiim,  21  Edw.  I.  No.  118 — -Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  vi.  pp.  83-84. 
'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  118,  m.  gido — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  294. 

'  This  is  deduced  from  the  fact  that  Robert  Archer's  widow,  Plesaunce,  sued  Nicholas  for  dower  in 
these  lands  and  the  latter  called  John,  son  of  Robert  Archer,  to  warrant.  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  153,  m.  183. 
— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxix.  p.  454. 

'  Originalia,  8  Edw.  III.  Rot.  26 — -Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  310. 
*  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vii.  p.  386;    Cal.  oj  Close  Rolls,  1333-1337,  pp.  167,  aio. 
'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  337,  m.  346. 

'  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  pp.  10,  59.  •  Ibid.  p.  107.  "  Ibid.  p.  237. 

"  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  81,  m.  72 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  pp.  408-409. 
'-  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  128,  m.  19 — Duke's  Transcripts,  xxiii.  pp.  395-396. 


curious  case.  He  had  surrendered  4  messuages  and  80  acres  of  land  in 
Paston,  to  the  chief  lord,  who  had  enfeoffed  Adam,  Thomas  of  Kilham's 
son,  therewith,  and  had  given  the  custody  thereof  during  the  minority  of 
Adam  to  Robert  of  Trollop.  Shortly  after  this  the  guardian  leased  these 
lands  to  the  original  holder  for  life,  and  this  was  held  in  1293  to  be  an  act 
of  disseising  against  Adam,  who  thereby  recovered  his  property  with  4od. 
damages.  Matilda,  daughter  of  Robert  of  Trollop  was  accused  of  a  share 
in  this  disseisin,  but  was  dismissed  the  case,^  and  it  may  be  that  there  had 
been  some  projected  marriage  between  her  and  Adam,  and  that  it  had  fallen 
through.  We  hear  no  more  of  Adam  of  Paston,  but  his  guardian, 
Robert  of  Trollop,  claimed  a  messuage  and  24  acres  of  land  in  Paston  in 
1297,2  and  John  of  Trollop,  who  forfeited  3  messuages  and  40  acres  of  land 
worth  20S.  in  Shotton  and  Paston  for  complicity  in  Gilbert  Middleton's 
rising  of  1317,^  was  doubtless  his  heir.  In  1276  there  is  mention  of  a  Hugh 
of  Paston,  who  claimed  a  toft,  3  acres  and  3^  roods  of  land  and  a  moiety  of 
an  acre  of  pasture  in  Paston  from  Roger  of  Bolton,  and  an  acre  and  one  rood 
of  land  in  the  same  vill  from  Robert,  son  of  Geoffre}'  of  Paston,*  of  none  of 
whom  we  know  anything  further,  save  that  the  last  defendant's  house  was 
broken  into  in  1256  by  malefactors,  who  left  him  and  his  wife  bound,  while 
they  escaped  with  their  booty  into  Scotland.^  Something  under  a  century 
later  we  hear  of  a  Richard  of  Kilham,  who  bought  lands  in  Kilham  and 
Paston  of  Thomas  Atterell  and  Isabel  his  wife  in  1342,  and  two  years  later 
sold  a  very  similar  holding  to  William  of  Berwick.® 

During  the  sixteenth  century  there  are  allusions  to  two  families  as  land- 
owners in  Paston,  apart  from  the  lord  of  the  manor  and  the  Strothers  who 
held  the  Kirkham  lands.  In  1589  John  Baxter  and  Margaret  his  wife  levied 
a  fine  with  regard  to  lands  in  Paston,'^  and  in  1593  Thomas  Manners  of 
Cheswick  left  his  lands  in  the  township  to  his  eldest  son  George  and  the  heirs 
of  his  body,  and  failing  such  heirs,  to  his  second  son  Henry  and  his  heirs.^ 

1  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  92-93. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  118,  m.  gido — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.\viii.  p.  294. 
'  Chancery  Files,  bundle  No.  265 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Docwnenis,  vol.  iv.  pp.  8-9. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  17,  m.  3ido,  No.  18,  m.  45,  No.  91,   m   50,  No.   21,  m.  6R — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxvi.  pp.  293,  314-316.  325-326.  341-343. 

'  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  107. 

'  Pedes  Finiiim,  16  Edw.  III.  No.  60  ;   18  Edw.  III.  No.  69 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  136-137, 

'  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  pp.  56-57. 
'  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  218. 


Shotton  in  Paston.^ — A  large  farm  nestling  at  the  bottom  of  a  wooded 
dean  to-day  marks  the  site  of  what  must  have  been  a  considerable  hamlet 
in  medieval  times.  Originally,  doubtless,  it  was  an  independent  vill,  and 
before  the  Scottish  wars  was  a  place  of  greater  importance  than  either  Paston 
or  Kilham.  Thus,  while  the  moveables  of  the  last  two  places  were  valued 
at  £i6  los.  I  id.  and  £20  7s.  lod.  respectively  in  1296,  those  of  Shotton 
reached  the  considerably  larger  sum  of  £30  14s.  8d.  It  is  true  that  the 
number  of  inhabitants  assessed  in  Kilham  was  eleven,  as  against  nine  in 
Shotton,  but  even  here  Paston  had  the  lowest  record  with  seven  house- 
holders.^ The  township  of  Shotton  was  a  member  of  the  barony  of  Wark,^ 
and  the  overlordship  went  with  the  barony*  till  the  seventeenth  century, 
when  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Selbys.^ 

The  township  was  probably  subinfeudated  to  the  Corbets  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  for  William,  son  of  Patrick,  earl  of  Dunbar,  whose  wife  was  the  Corbet 
heiress,  gave  to  the  monks  of  Kelso  'all  easements  of  that  vill  of  Schottun, 
and  to  their  men  if  they  should  choose  to  dwell  there,  as  well  in  pasture  and 
fuel,  as  in  the  mill,  to  wit  that  they  should  grind  their  corn  which  they 
might  cultivate  or  have  in  the  territory  of  Colpenhope  and  of  Schottun 
at  the  mill  of  Schottun  without  any  multure,'  directly  after  the  corn  being 
ground  at  the  time  they  sent  theirs,  save  if  there  were  any  of  the  lord's  com 
ready  for  grinding.  To  this  he  added  pasture  for  400  ewes  and  40  cows  in  the 
vill  in  any  place  outside  the  cornlands  and  meadow.^  Moreover  this  donor's 
father-in-law,  Walter  Corbet,  had  confirmed  a  gift  made  by  Robert  of 
Shotton^  of  5  acres  in  the  vill  lying  'nearest  to  Colpenhope  from  the  eastern 
side,  to  wit  as  the  rivulet  descends  near  Colpenhope  as  far  as  unto  that 
rivulet  which  divides  England  and  Scotland,  and  so  by  that  rivulet  as  it 
descends  towards  the  chapel  of  St.  Edilride,  the  Virgin,  as  far  as  another 
rivulet  which  descends  near  Homeldun,  and  afterwards  by  the  same  rivulet 
to  a  glen  where  that  rivulet  from  Homeldun  crosses  the  way  which  comes 
from  Yetholm,  and  so  by  the  foresaid  way  to  two  great  stones.^    Thus  it  is 

»  Earlier  Scotadun,  Shottone.     Probably  O.E.  Sco/a-di(M=hill  of  the  small  huts.     Sele-scot  is  used  in  O.E. 
bibles  as  a  gloss  to  Latin  labernaciilnm.     The  same  element  is  probably  found  in  Shotley. 

^  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  fols.  loo-ioi,  105,  108-iog. 

'  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211. 

*  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  pp.  66-67;    Cn/.  oj  Inq.  p.m.  second  series,  vol.  ii.  pp.  340-341. 

5  P.R.O.,  L.T.R.  Memoranda  Roll,  545,  m.  319.      »  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  No.  361,       '  Ibid.  No.  360. 

'  Ibid.  Nos.  362,  364.     At  a  later  date  the  monks  only  claimed  two  acres  in  Shotton.     They  kept  a 
man  in  the  mill  there  and  one  pig.     i^Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  457.) 


obvious  that  Robert  of  Shotton  held  under  the  Corbets,  and  his  son,  Walter  of 
Shotton,  otherwise  of  Kilham,  succeeded  him.^  This  Walter  Kilham's  son, 
Thomas,  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  thirteenth  century  gave  to  the  monks 
of  Melrose  8  acres  in  Shotton  in  exchange  for  a  similar  holding,  which  his  father 
had  given  them  in  Kilham.  This  land  lay  at  the  south  end  of  the  arable 
ground  of  Hamaldunflat  between  two  roads  that  descended  to  the  moor  to 
the  north,  as  far  as  certain  stones  placed  to  mark  the  boundary,  and  carried 
with  it  pasture  rights  for  2  horses,  12  beasts  and  80  sheep.-  That  Thomas 
of  Kilham  held  other  property  in  Shotton  is  obvious  from  the  fact,  that 
his  widow  in  1242  claimed  dower  against  Henry  Stubbs  in  12  acres  of  land 
and  against  Hugh  of  Cornhill  in  4  acres  of  land  there,^  and  his  overlord, 
Robert  Roos,  also  held  certain  lands,  which  were  rented  to  others,  since 
after  his  death  his  widow  claimed  dower  in  6  marks  rent  in  Shotton 
against  Guischard  of  Charrum  and  in  5  marks  of  rent  there  against 
Walter  of  Camhowe.*  These  two  defendants  again  appeared  in  a  similar 
role  when  the  widow  of  Michael  of  Kilham,  the  son  of  Thomas  of  Kilham 
mentioned  above,  sued  them  for  dower  in  Shotton,  Guischard  in  2  messuages, 
24  acres  of  land,  i  acre  of  pasture  and  the  third  part  of  the  mill,  and  Walter 
in  3  messuages,  66  acres  of  land  and  the  third  part  of  the  mill.  Besides 
these  Robert  Roos  of  Wark  and  Nicholas,  son  of  Michael  of  Kilham,  were 
called  on  to  allot  dower  on  lands  they  held  in  Kilham  and  Paston.  The 
last  defendant  called  his  brother  John  to  warrant,  but  nothing  more  is  heard 
of  the  others.^  It  is  impossible  to  unravel  the  exact  interest  which  these 
various  persons  had  in  the  township,  but  whatever  was  the  holding  of 
Nicholas  of  Kilham,  it  passed  from  the  family  soon  after,  as  he  first  leased, 
and  later  alienated  all  his  lands  there  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham.^ 

There  seems  reason  to  believe  that  the  manor  was  at  some  time  divided 
into  four  parts,  since  in  1323  David  Baxter  died  seised  of  a  fourth  part  thereof 

'  One  Robert  Trockalowe  confirmed  the  gifts  of  Robert  and  Walter  of  Shotton.      (Ibid.  Nos.  365,  366.) 

-  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  pp.  266-267.  Symeon  states  that  'Scotodun'  in  the  valley  of  the  Bowmont 
was  given  by  King  Oswin  to  St.  Cuthbert.  (Symeon,  Hist,  de  S.  Cuthberlo,  vol.  i.  pp.  196-197.  It  is  identified 
as  Shotton  in  the  Surtees  Society  edition  No.  51,  p.  139),  but  there  is  no  other  trace  of  property  there  held 
by  the  monastery  of  Durham  or  by  its  ceU  of  Holy  Island. 

'  Curia  Regis  Rolls,  Nos.  124,  125 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xi.  pp.  227-228. 

*  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  5,  m.  7,  No.  13,  m.  25do,  No.  7,  m.  4do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  pp. 
141-142,  173.  247. 

'  De  Banco  Rolls,  No.  81,   m.  72,    No.  82,   m.   48,    No.   89.   m.  71 — Duke's  Transcripts,  pp.  408-409. 

414.  533-535- 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  86.  No  further  mention  is  made  of  these  lands.  The  master  of  the  Temple 
claimed  liberties  in  Shotton  in  1293  (Quo  Warranto — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  162-163I,  but  this  may  have 

been  in  respect  of  lands  mentioned  under  Paston  which  were  partly  in  Shotton. 


as  of  the  inheritance  of  his  wife  Ehzabeth,  paying  therefore  to  the  lord  of 
Wark  one  pound  of  pepper  annually,^  and  at  a  later  date  a  fourth  part 
of  the  mill  is  mentioned.-  One  portion  appears  in  1310  in  the  hands  of 
John  Widdrington  of  Denton,  held  by  service  of  a  quarter  of  a  knight's  fee,^ 
but  his  successor  Roger  Widdrington  of  Denton  forfeited  his  lands  for 
having  participated  in  the  rising  of  Gilbert  Middleton  in  13 17.  These,  con- 
sisting of  3  messuages  and  100  acres  of  land,  were  granted  by  the  crown  in 
1359  to  Sir  John  Coupland  and  his  wife  Joan.^  Despite  this,  the  family  of 
Widdrington  reappears  in  the  township.  Probably  the  5  messuages,  100 
acres  of  land  and  20  acres  of  meadow  in  Shotton,  of  which  Sir  John 
Widdrington  died  seised  in  1434,  were  in  Shotton  in  Glendale,^  and  in  1451 
Roger  Widdrington  died  seised  of  2  husbandlands  in  Shotton  in  Glendale.^ 
The  last  mention  of  the  WMddringtons  is  contained  in  an  inquisition  taken  in 
1503  after  the  death  of  Sir  Ralph  Widdrington,  whose  son  and  heir,  Henry, 
inherited  2  husbandlands  in  the  township  held  of  Ralph  Grey.'^  Whether 
these  Widdrington  lands  were  the  same  as  those  forfeited  in  1317  or  not  we 
cannot  tell.  At  any  rate  John  and  Joan  Coupland  held  other  land  there, 
for  at  the  same  time  as  the}'  were  given  the  forfeited  property  of  Roger 
Widdrington,  they  received  a  smaller  holding  forfeited  by  John  of  Trollop  for 
a  similar  reason.^  These  lands  passed  to  Joan  Coupland  at  her  husband's 
death,  and  in  1365  were  sold  under  the  title  of  the  manor  of  Shotton  to 
Thomas,  son  of  Roger  of  Howtel,^  though  what  became  of  them  thereafter 
we  do  not  know. 

The  Strothers  were  yet   another  family  which  acquired  property  in 
Shotton    in   the    early    years  of    the    14th    century.        In    1329    William 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.  2  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  v.  p.  120.  This  is  recorded  in  the  inquisition  of  Robert  Fitz  Roger,  where  it  is 
erroneously  stated  that  Shotton  in  Glendale  was  a  fee  of  the  barony  of  Whalton.  This  is  of  course  a  confusion 
with  Shotton  in  Stannington  where  the  Widdringtons  also  held  lands. 

*  Chancery  Files,  bundle  No.  265— Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  pp.  8-9 ;  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls, 
1358-1361,  pp.  233-234. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  22  Hen.  VI.  No.  53 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  274.  The  other  Shotton  occurs  in  another 
part  of  the  inquisition.  It  is  possible  that  the  two  husbandlands  in  Thornton  in  Glendale  ascribed  to  him 
in  this  inquisition  may  be  a  mistake  for  Shotton,  since  there  is  no  other  mention  of  the  family's  connection 
with  Thornton,  nor  is  the  place  mentioned  in  any  connection  before  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  holding 
corresponds  exactly  to  that  held  by  the  family  in  1451  and  1503. 

«  Inq.  p.m.  29  Hen.  VI.  No.  25 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  275. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  second  series,  vol.  ii.  pp.  340-341. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  233-234.  Cf.  Chancery  Files,  bundle  No.  265 — Bain.  Cal.  of 
Documents,  vol.  iv.  pp.  8-9.  where  the  editor  seems  to  have  mistaken  the  word  'there'  to  refer  to  Trollop 
and  not  to  Shotton. 

•  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  138 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .xxxix.  pp.  2yb-2Tj  ;  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls, 
1364-1368,  pp.  194-195.  199. 


Strother  of  Kirknewton  and  Joan,  his  wife,  acquired  3  tofts,  7  bovates  of  land 
and  6d.  rent  in  Shotton  near  Paston  from  John  of  Penrith,  son  of  Adam 
of  Starthorpe,  and  his  wife  Matilda,  whose  inheritance  it  seems  to  have  been. 
This  was  entailed  on  William's  son,  William,  with  remainder  over  to  his  right 
heirs,^  and  the  very  next  year  the  same  purchasers  acquired  the  property 
of  Roger,  son  of  Walter  Corbet,  in  the  township. ^  This  last  was  at  a  later 
date  forfeited  owing  to  Walter  Corbet's  association  with  Gilbert  Middleton, 
and  when  it  was  returned  to  Henry  Strother,  as  son  and  heir  of  William  and 
Joan,  the  tenant  David  Baxter  refused  to  attorn  to  him.  It  then  consisted  of 
a  messuage  and  240  acres  of  land  held  of  the  manor  of  Lanton  by  military 
service,  homage,  fealty  and  scutage,  suit  at  the  court  of  Lanton  every 
three  weeks,  4od.  for  castle  ward  and  2S.  for  cornage.^  David  also  doubtless 
owned  the  quarter  of  the  manor  held  of  the  lord  of  Wark,  of  which  his  grand- 
father died  seised,*  and  we  have  a  more  detailed  account  of  his  holding, 
when  after  his  death  his  widow  in  1369  was  allotted  dower,  whereby  it  appears 
that  he  held  a  toft  and  146  acres  of  demesne  land,  4  tofts  and  5  husband- 
lands  elsewhere  in  the  township,  and  another  toft  with  which  went  12  acres 
in  Paston,  this  last  being  taken  to  be  equal  in  value  to  one  husbandland 
in  Shotton.  In  addition  he  held  a  quarter  of  the  mill,  and  a  toft  and  2|  acres 
of  land  called  the  Milneland.''  Whether  or  not  all  this  was  held  of  the 
Strothers  we  cannot  tell,  but  they  still  owned  property  in  the  township  when 
William  Strother  of  Kirknewton  provided  for  the  descent  of  his  lands  in 
1579,^  and  in  1663  the  laird  of  Kirknewton  owned  a  small  share  of  Shotton  with 
a  rental  value  of  £8  annually.''  This  was  described  as  'a  messuage  and 
farmhold '  in  the  late  seventeenth  century,  and  passed  with  the  rest  of  the 
Strother  property  to  John  Strother  Ker.^ 

The  chief  landowner  in  1541  was  the  earl  of  Rutland,^  when  the  border 
commissioners  reported  that  'the  towneshippe  of  Shotton  was  some  tyme 

'  Pedes  Finium,  3  Edw.  III.  No.  7 — Duke's  Travscripls,  vol.  x.xxix.  pp.  11-13;     Laivg  Charters,  p.  7. 

^  Laing  Charters,  p.  10. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  413,  m.  73 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxv.  pp.  135-142. 

«  See  pages  183-184.  5  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 

"  Laing  Charters,  p.  244;    Feet  oj  Fines,  sixteenth  centurj-,  p.  41. 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  372,  No,  55. 

•  The  Manners  had  owned  property  in  Shotton  since  1451  at  the  latest.  In  that  year  Kobcrt  Manners 
ot  Etal  sued  Gerard  Manners  for  340  acres  of  land,  40  acres  of  meadow,  400  acres  of  pasture,  10  acres  of 
wood,  300  acres  of  moor,  20  acres  of  marsh,  10  aqres  of  older  grove  and  the  moiety  of  a  mill  in  Shotton  by 
gift  of  the  crown.     (De  Banco  Roll,  No.  763  m.  280  do.) 

Vol.   XI.  24 


of  vi.  husband  lands  and  nowe  lyeth  waste  and  unplenyshed,  and  so  hath 
contynued  this  xxxte  years  and  more.''  Indeed  the  greater  part  of  the 
territory  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Scots.-  In  the  very  next  year  tiie  earl  of 
Rutland  made  allusion  to  this  property  in  his  will,^  but  no  further  trace  of 
the  family  is  to  be  found  there,  and  Shotton  did  not  pass  to  the  crown  with 
the  rest  of  the  Northumberland  property  belonging  to  the  Manners.  It 
is  possible  that  it  went  to  the  Selbys,  for  in  1565  John  Selby  bequeathed 
to  his  wife  'my  ryght  of  Shotton  duryng  hyr  lyffe,  and  after  to  my  sone 
John  Selbe  and  to  his  heyrs  male.'*  This  son,  John  Selby  of  Branxton, 
in  158 1  made  elaborate  provision  for  the  descent  of  his  property,  including 
lands  in  Shotton,^  and  his  son,  Sir  William  Selby  of  Branxton,  did  homage 
for  the  manor  in  1612.^  By  1663  the  Selbys  had  ceased  to  be  landowners 
there,  and  possibly  their  holding  was  then  owned  by  one  Watson,  whose 
rent  roll  in  the  township  was  £66.''  At  the  same  time  the  second  largest 
holding  was  that  of  'Lord  Grey  and  Mr.  Gilbert  Swinhoe,'  rented  at  £58  a 
year.^  Lord  Grey's  share  of  this  joint  property  had  been  bought  in  1603 
from  Nicholas  Rutherford  of  GunduUis  in  Scotland  by  Sir  Ralph  Grey,^ 
who  already  had  a  small  holding  in  the  township,  since  in  1597,  in  answer  to 
the  charge  that  his  lands  in  Shotton  were  'let  to  and  inhabited  by  the 
Taytes,  Scotsmen,'  he  had  rephed,  'In  Shotton  I  have  a  tenement  of  40s. 
rent,  wherein  one  George  Tayte,  a  Scotsman  born,  was  placed  by  my  brother. 
Sir  Thomas  Grey,  16  years  ago  at  the  late  Lord  Hudson's  request,  and  is 
there  ever  since.  This  country  knows  that  Tayte  has  spent  his  blood  rescuing 
Englishmen's  goods.  Any  other  Taytes  there  belong  to  other  gentlemen. 
I  have  no  more  land  in  the  town.''"  At  the  division  of  the  Grey  inheritance 
this  property  went  to  Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  and  from  him  to  the  Greys  of  Howick. 
It  was  sold  by  Sir  Henry  Grey  in  1765  to  David  Hastings  of  Alnwick,  being 
described  as  a  farmhold  in  Shotton,  now  known  as  West  Shotton.  This 
David  Hastings  by  his  will  dated  20th  July,  1790,  left  it  to  trustees,  who  in 
1801  conveyed  it  to  George,  marquis  of  Tweedale,  from  whom  it  passed  to 
the  Selbys  of  Paston.     Meanwhile  another  portion  of  the  township,  known 

1  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  31. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  175-176,  218-219. 
'  Northern  Wills,  vol.  i.  p.  187.  '  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  235. 

'  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  centurj',  p.  45.  "  P.R.O.  L.T.R.  Memoranda  Roll,  No.  545,  m.  319. 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278.      Watson  was  probably  the  same  as  Thomas  Watson 
who  in  1663  owned  part  of  Harelaw. 

"  Ibid.  °  Paston  Deeds.  '"  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  401. 


as  Little  Shotton,  had  passed  by  i66g  to  James  Walker,  who  in  that  year 
sold  to  Richard  Wallace,  son  of  William  Wallace.  In  i6gi  James  Wallace 
conveyed  this  property  to  Robert  Tate  of  Shotton,  who  was  succeeded  by 
his  son  John  and  his  grandson  Robert.  The  last  named's  sister  and  heir, 
Mary,  wife  of  George  Davison  of  Hopeton  in  Scotland,  sold  in  1774  to  William 
Cuthbert  of  Newcastle,  and  in  1802  the  property  was  sold  to  the  Selbys  of 
Paston,  who  thus  became  the  owners  of  practically  the  whole  township.^ 
The  exception  to  this  is  the  farm  of  Beaumont  Hill.  This  belonged  to  the 
Selbys  of  Paston,  but  under  the  name  of  Standalone  it  passed*  at  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century  to  William  Alder,  the  house  being  built  about 
1818  and  given  the  present  name.  From  the  Alders  the  property  passed  to 
the  Forsters,  and  from  them  to  John  Forster  Baird,  whose  executors  in  1919 
sold  it  to  Andrew  Tajdor  and  Sons.^ 


The  origin  of  this  modern  township^  is  very  obscure.  Possibly  it  was 
a  conglomeration  of  various  small  vills  clustered  round  the  north  side  of 
Cheviot  of  which  the  traces  have  been  lost  in  modern  times. 

Thompson's  Walls,  formerly  Antechester. — In  a  survey  of  the 
barony  of  Wark  in  Oueen  Elizabeth's  day  there  is  an  allusion  to 
'  the  parcell  of  ground  commonlie  called  Thompson's  Walls,  or  Antechester, 
a  member  of  Kilham,  h'ing  between  Kilham  and  Shotton,'*  but  Mr.  Bates 
in  his  Border  Holds  attributes  quite  another  site  to  Antechester,  placing 
it  on  the  high  ground  to  the  west  of  Mindrum  between  the  range  of  Horse 
Ridge  and  the  Camp  Hill,  being  led  to  do  so  by  various  maps  of  North- 
umberland dating  from  the  later  eighteenth  and  earlier  nineteenth  centuries.^ 
To  place  it  so  far  north  and  across  Bowmont  water  is  quite  inadmissible 
in  view  of  an  allusion  to  '  Chester'  in  a  1223  boundary  delimitation  of  Trollop, 
which  on  one  side  touched  the  College,^  and  of  its  association  with  Kilham, 

'  Paston  Deeds.  *  Beaumont  Hill  Deeds. 

'  The  Census  returns  are  :  1801,32;   1811,49;   1821,44;    1831,44;    1841,38;    1851,20:    1861,30; 
1871,  25;    1881,  15  ;    1891,  8  ;    1901,  g  ;    191 1,  12.     The  township  comprises  1436-828  acres. 

*  Lambert  MS. 

'  .\rmstrong's  map  1769,  Greenwood's  map  1828,  Shadforth  and  Dinning's  map  1847.     Border  Holds, 
p.  32  note. 

*  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  i.  pp.  270-272. 


which  is  proved  not  only  by  the  survey  quoted  above,  but  also  by  the  muster 
of  horse  on  the  East  Marches  of  1584,  which  groups  the  two  places  together  for 
this  purpose.^  Still  earlier  in  1380  it  was  associated  with  Paston  as  member  of 
the  manor  of  Kilham  held  by  Sir  John  Arundel, ^  so  it  is  obvious  that  it  formed 
part  of  the  barony  of  Wark,  but  lay  on  the  borders  of  that  barony  and  close 
up  to  the  Muschamp  lands  in  Hethpool  and  Trollop. 

If  we  can  identify  'Derecestre'  with  Antechester,  it  was  held  in  1249 
by  Robert  Ford,  who  paid  40  marks  into  the  exchequer  for  its  return  after 
seizure  by  Earl  Patrick,^  but  this  is  a  solitary  allusion,  and  nowhere  does 
it  undoubtedly  appear  till  in  1365  it  was  settled  together  with  other  lands 
on  Joan,  widow  of  Sir  John  Coupland,  and  her  heirs,^  a  proceeding  confirmed 
in  1367.^  In  1372  it  passed  by  sale  from  Joan  to  Sir  Richard  Arundel,^  and 
formed  part  of  the  estate  of  Sir  John  Arundel  who  died  in  December,  1379, 
being  then  wasted  and  destroyed  by  the  Scots  and  thus  worth  nothing^ 
In  1404  Richard  Arundell  had  some  trouble  owing  to  the  fact  that  Antechester, 
like  his  possessions  in  Wooler,  had  been  mortgaged  to  Harry  Hotspur  and 
was  therefore  included  in  the  latter's  forfeiture  on  rebellion,  though 
eventually  he  secured  its  return.^ 

Antechester  does  not  appear  again  till  it  is  found  in  the  possession  of  the 
Greys,  doubtless  acquired  with  the  other  possessions  brought  by  that  family 
from  the  Arundels.**  In  1541  Bowes's  Survey  records  that  '  the  towneshippe 
of  Antechester  was  some  tyme  by  estymacon  of  viii.  husband  lands  and 
hath  lyen  waste  unplenyshed  sythence  before  the  remembrance  of  any  man 
nowe  lyvynge  and  ys  of  the  inherytaunce  of  Rauffe  Graye  of  Chyllyng- 
ham.'^"  In  1568  this  Ralph's  son,  Thomas,  succeeded,  but  as  a  minor  his 
lands  were  in  the  queen's  hands."  It  is  obvious  from  this  that  the  little 
township  was  not  a  great  source  of  income,  which  probably  accounts  for 

'  Muster  of  Horse  in  East  Marches — Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  pp.  156,  157. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  3.  Ric.  II.  No.  i — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-44. 

'  Pipe  Rolls,  33  and  34  Hen.  III. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  pp.  43,  45. 

*  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276  ;  De  Banco  Roll, 
No.  421,  m.  297do.  A  Thomas  Archer  of  '  Antichester'  witnessed  a  deed  dated  1317.  Belvoir  Deeds, 
drawer  14.     He  was  probably  a  relative  of  the  lord  of  Kilham  who  was  another  witness. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  pp.  38-39. 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1369-1374,  p.  448  ;  Pedes  Finium,  47  Edw.  III.  No.  158 — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxix.  pp.  312-315. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  3  Ric.  II.  No.  I — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-45. 

"  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1401-1  105,  pp.  309-310.  "  See  page  324. 

'"  Border  Survey,  154 1 — Border  Holds,  p.  32. 

"  Liber  Fvodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixiii. 


the  fact  that  it  is  so  seldom  mentioned,  as  jurors  would  tend  to  forget  a 
totally  unproductive  area  of  wild  moorland  when  estimating  a  dead  man's 
possessions.  Like  Hethpool  it  was  outside,  what  Lord  Dacre  called, 
the  'plenished  ring  of  the  border,'  and  it  played  no  part  in  its  defences. 
Sir  Robert  Bowes  mentions  no  tower  pertaining  to  it,  but  in  his  plan  of  castles 
Christopher  Dacre  marks  '  Antechester '  hard  by  Hethpool  as  a  fortified 

The  identification  of  Antechester  with  Thompson's  Walls  is  made 
difficult  by  the  statement  in  the  settlement  made  by  William,  Lord  Grey,  in 
1626,  that  the  latter  place  had  been  recently  purchased  by  his  father.  Sir 
Ralph  Grey,  of  John  Strother.^  We  know  that  the  last  named  even  after 
this  owned  lands  in  Cheviot,  and  it  may  be  that  some  of  these  were  bought 
by  Sir  Ralph  Grey,  added  to  this  existing  property  of  Antechester,  and  created 
into  a  single  property,  which  became  the  township  of  Thompson's  Walls. 
At  any  rate  Lord  Grey  owned  Thompson's  Walls  in  1663,  and  was  then  rated 
on  a  rent  roll  of  £44.^  It  passed  on  the  death  of  Ford,  Lord  Grey,  to  his 
brother  Ralph,  and  was  sold  in  1733  for  £1,050  to  James  Scott  of  Alnwick, 
who  by  his  will  dated  nth  March,  1760,  bequeathed  it  to  his  son  George. 
By  his  win,  dated  24th  February,  1766,  George  Scott  devised  the  estate  to  his 
nephew,  James  Grey  of  Alnwick,  who  left  it  in  -1772  to  his  brother  John."* 
The  latter  died  in  1775,  leaving  as  sole  heir  an  infant  daughter,  who  died 
under  age,  when  the  property  passed  to  her  father's  first  cousin,  James  Rich- 
ardson. In  1801  the  new  owner  sold  to  Alexander  Davidson  of  Lanton  and 
Swarland,  whose  granddaughters  in  turn  sold  to  John  Forster  Baird  in  1875. 
Finally  the  property  was  sold  in  1918  to  George  Frederick  Bell  of  Mindrum.^ 

CoLPiNHOPE. — Down  to  the  fourteenth  century  there  are  occasional  refer- 
ences to  a  tenement  or  grange  called  Colpinhope,  which  was  either  within  or 
adjoining  the  territory  of  Shotton,  and  which  originally  formed  part  of  the 
Corbet  inheritance.  It  was  given  by  Walter  Corbet  in  the  second  half  of  the 
twelfth  century  to  the  monks  of  Kelso,  being  then  described  as  his  '  tenement 
in  Colpinhope  in  the  territory  of  Shotton,'  and  conveyed  free  of  all  secular 

'  Photograph  of  Dacre's  Plat  oj  Castles,  etc.,  1584 — Border  Holds,  p.  78.  -  Lambert  MS. 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  279.  In  1682  it  belonged  to  Ford,  Lord  Grey,  and  was 
valued  at  £'^0.  Exchequer  Special  Commissions,  Northumberland,  31  Chas.  II.  No.  621S. 

'  In  1772  Thompson's  Walls  was  advertised  for  sale.  '  Enquire  of  John  Grey  of  Alnwick,  jun,  esq.  .  .  . 
to  whom  all  persons  indebted  to  Jas.  Grey,  esq.,  deceased,  are  to  pay  debts.'  (Newcastle  CouranI,  22nd 
August,  1772.) 

^  Thonipson's  Walls  Deeds. 


service  and  exactions  and  of  'inware  and  outware.'^  When  the  property 
had  passed  in  the  early  thirteenth  century  to  Christine,  granddaughter  of  this 
Walter  Corbet  and  wife  of  William,  son  of  Patrick,  earl  of  Dunbar,  the  'land 
called  Colpinhope  with  the  mill  and  with  pasture  and  all  easements  adjacent' 
was  confirmed  to  the  monks,-  and  it  is  thus  evident  that  a  mill  had  been  built 
in  the  interval.  This  fact  is  confirmed  by  an  early  rental  of  the  monastery, 
which  describes  '  the  grange  called  Colpinope '  as  beyond  the  border  and 
taking  two  ploughs  to  cultivate  it  in  winter.  The  rights  of  pasture  were 
for  20  oxen,  20  cows  and  their  calves  and  in  addition  common  pasture  for 
500  ewes  and  200  sheep  of  the  second  year.  As  to  their  corn,  formerly  the 
monks  had  ground  it  at  Shotton  mill,  but  they  had  subsequently  secured  a 
licence  for  a  mill  in  Colpinhope  itself,  paying  half  a  mark  yearly  to  the  Shotton 
mill  in  lieu  of  multure.^  This  payment  was  pursuant  to  an  arrangement  come 
to  with  Walter,  son  of  Robert  of  Shotton,  who  in  return  for  the  annual  half 
mark  had  declared  the  monks  free  '  from  all  work  at  the  mill  and  milldam  and 
the  leading  of  mill  stores  and  multure,'  and  agreed  not  only  to  grind  their 
corn  from  Shotton  and  Colpinhope  without  fee,  but  added  a  guarantee  that 
the  milling  should  be  as  carefully  carried  out  as  in  the  case  of  his  own  man- 
orial corn.*  During  the  Anglo-Scottish  wars  this  property  was  forfeited  to 
the  English  crown,  which  in  1359  presented  it  to  Sir  John  Coupland.^  From 
him  it  passed  with  the  rest  of  his  property  to  his  widow  Joan,^  who  by 
1368,  having  decided  to  make  restitution,  applied  for  licence  to  convey  '  her 
pasture  called  le  Colpenhope'  to  the  abbot  and  convent  of  Kelso.  It  was 
then  found  to  be  held  of  Henry  Strother  as  of  his  manor  of  Lanton  and  to  be 
worth  20S.  yearly."  On  July  12th,  1370,  the  necessary  licence  was  granted,^ 
and  the  abbey  once  more  owned  the  property  which  thenceforth  disappears 
into  the  unknown. 

Thus  the  existence  of  Colpinhope  is  established  beyond  doubt,  but  its 
exact  situation  is  not  so  easily  ascertained.  In  the  charter  of  confirmation 
given  by  William,  son  of  Patrick,  earl  of  Dunbar,  the  boundaries  are  given  as 

'  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  No.  359.  "  Ibid.  No.  361. 

'  Rotultts  Rcddititum  in  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  pp.  457,  458.  *  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  No.  363. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  233-234.  Cf.  Chancery  Files,  bundle  265 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents, 
vol.  iv.  p.  9. 

'  Pedes  Pinium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276  ;  Cal.  of  Patent 
Rolls,  I3''7-I370.  P-  39- 

'  November  14th,  1368.     Inq.  A.Q.D.  file  ccclxv.  No.  19.     Cf.  Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  pp.  33-34. 

"  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  p    454. 


'  from  Edredsete  as  far  as  Greneagre  under  Edredsete  and  so  to  the  well  which 
is  the  head  of  the  rivulet  that  separates  the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Scot- 
land.' There  is  further  mention  in  the  same  charter  of  the  rivulet  which 
'descends  next  Colpenhope,'  which  was  distinct  from  the  rivulet  marking 
the  border  and  also  from  the  one  '  which  descends  near  Homeldun.'^  Further 
we  gather  from  a  charter  of  Alexander  II.,  kin'g  of  Scots,  that  Yetholm 
lay  opposite  near  the  rivulet  which  divided  the  two  kingdoms,^  which  all  seems 
to  prove  that  the  latter  place  lay  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Halterburn 
lower  down  than  Halterburn  itself,  though  there  is  just  a  chance  that  it  was 
identical  with  that  place  which  does  not  appear  till  the  name  Colpinhope 
had  passed  into  oblivion.  Colpinhope  may  well  have  extended  eastwards 
as  far  as  the  present  day  Butterstone  Shank,  and  it  most  probably  included 
Coldsmouth  Hill  which  with  Thompson's  Walls  has  given  its  name  to  the 
present  township.  The  presence  of  this  hill  in  this  position— in  point  of 
fact  exactly  '  opposite '  the  modern  Kirkyetholm— together  with  the  similarity 
of  the  first  syllables  and  the  obvious  corruption  of  the  termination  '  mouth, ' 
lead  to  the  suggestion  that  Coldsmouth  owes  its  origin  to  Colpinhope.  It  may 
be  that  a  portion  of  the  township  of  Shotton,  owing  to  its  connection  with 
Kelso,  became  detached  from  its  original  allegiance,  and  in  the  days  when  Kelso 
fell,  became  allied  with  Antechester  or  Thompson's  Walls— always  a  depen- 
dent part  of  Shotton  or  Paston— and  was  incorporated  therewith  into  the 
new  township  of  Coldsmouth  and  Thompson's  \\'alls  of  which  no  trace  in 
early  days  can  be  found. ^  For  many  generations  Coldsmouth  has  belonged 
to  the  earls  of  Tankerville,  being  joined  to  Elsdonbum,  and  has  been  recently 
sold  to  Mr.  Nicholson,  the  tenant  at  the  time  of  the  sale. 

'  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  No.  361.  This  Humbledon  Hill  is  on  the  Scottish  side  of  the  present  border 
on  the  east  bank  of  the  Halterburn. 

-  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  No.  392. 

'  The  earliest  mention  of  Coldsmouth  is  found  in  a  terrier  of  Kirknewton  vicarage  of  1637,  where  there 
is  allusion  to  the  tithes  of  Heddon  and  Coldsmouth,  which  were  quite  distinct  from  the  tithes  of  Thompson's 
Walls,  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  same  document.     (Terrier  in  Durham  Registry — Caley  MS.) 



Descent  of  the  Property. — The  vill  of  Howtel,^  which  mcludes  K^-pie, 
Tuperee  and  Reedsford,  stretches  from  the  boundary  of  Flodden  on  the  north- 
east to  Bowmont  water  on  the  south-east.  It  was  a  member  of  the  barony 
of  Roos,-  and  was  subinfeudated,  at  any  rate  by  1208,  when  Theobald  of 
Shotton  and  Alexander,  son  of  Ralph  of  Branxton,  effected  an  exchange 
of  lands,  whereby  the  latter  acquired  9  acres  of  land  in  Branxton  and  Howtel, 
together  with  a  moiety  of  the  whole  service  of  Stephen  of  Howtel,  for  the  whole 
vill  of  Howtel.^  Thus  it  would  seem  that  Theobald  and  Alexander  held 
Howtel  of  the  barony  in  equal  moieties,  and  that  of  them  Stephen  of  Howtel 
held  the  whole  vill.  Stephen's  son,  Walter,  however  was  not  proprietor 
of  the  whole  township,  for  somewhere  about  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth 
century  we  find  him  joining  with  one  Bernard  of  Howtel  in  a  gift  to  Kirkham 


Stephen  of  Howtel,  held  =  Bernard  of  Howtel,  owned  land  in  Howtel  and  was  = 

Howtel   in    1208  (a).  1  contemporary  with  Walter  of  Howtel  (6). 

Walter  of  Howtel  (6).  =  Alexander  of  Howtel  (c). 

i  \  I 

=  Roger  of  Howtel  (c).  Patrick  of  Howtel  (6).  Robert  of  Howtel  {b).  = 

i  ? 

I  I  I 

Patrick  of  Howtel  (c)  ;  living  1286  (d)  ;        (A)  Alan  of  Howtel,  died  =j=  Alice  H)  =  Alan  of  Howtel  (0 

and  in  1305  (e).  before  1299  (i). 



See  p.  217. 

(e)  Agnes  =  Walter  of  Howtel  (e).         Margaret  {g),  living  1299  (i).  =  Walter  of  Howtel  (e),  died  circa  1280  {g). 

Hugh  of  Howtel,  a  minor  in  1280  (g)  ;  described  as  son  ot  Walter,  son  of  Alan,  son  of  Robert  in  1305  (e) 

(a)  Pedes  Finium,  10  John,  No.   14 — Duke's  Tran-         (/)   Kirkham  Cartulary,  fols.  j6-jj. 

scripts,  vol.  i.  pp.  50-51.  (g)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  34,  m.  15 — Duke's  Tran- 

(b)  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  77.       (c)   Ibid.  fol.  76.  scripts,  vol.  xxvi.  p.  407. 

(rf)  De   Banco   Roll,   No.   63,   m.   49;     Coram  Rege  {h)  For  evidence  suggesting  Alan  of   Howtel's 
Roll,    No.   127,  m.  56 — Duke's    Transcripts,  relationship  see  pages  193-194. 

vol.  xxvii,  pp.  181-182  ;   vol.  xxiii.  p.  320.  (i)    De  Banco   Roll,  No.  129,  m.  26do — Duke's 

(e)   Assize  Roll,   34  Edw.  I, — Duke's  Transcripts,  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  458. 

vol.  xix.  pp.  289,  295-296. 

'  Earlier  Holthale,  Holtele,  Holtall,  Hotell,  Howityll.  O.K.  («/)  holt-heale=[a.t)  holt-haugh  or  wooded- 
haugh,  heale  being  dat.  sg.  of  healh^hnugh.  The  Census  returns  are  :  1801,  186  ;  181 1,  130  ;  1821,  190  ; 
1831.  195  ;  1841,191;  1851,196;  1861,141;  1871,  114;  1881,  118;  1891,116;  1901,95;  1911,90. 
The  township  comprises  1162412  acres. 

-  Tesla  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  10  John  No.  14 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  pp.  50-51. 


priory  of  a  site  for  a  pond  there. ^  As  Nicholas  Corbet  complained  in  1256 
that  the  making  of  a  pond  in  Howtel  by  the  prior  of  Kirkham  injured  his 
property  in  Lanton,^  it  ma}'  well  be  that  this  pond  was  situated  in  Crookhouse, 
which  was  then  part  of  Howtel,  since  Lanton  and  the  present  township  of 
Howtel  are  nowhere  contiguous.  This  is  by  no  means  the  only  complication 
which  attends  the  unravelling  of  the  early  history  of  the  township,  which 
at  some  date  seems  to  have  been  split  up  into  several  small  holdings  and 
these  in  turn  subinfeudated,  the  majority  of  the  holders  being  described 
as  of  Howtel.  The  descendants  of  Bernard  of  Howtel  can  be  traced  in  the 
township  down  to  the  third  generation  by  means  of  their  successive  gifts  to 
the  priory  of  Kirkham  with  the  help  of  a  few  extraneous  documents,  but  the 
relationships  of  the  other  owners  of  land  are  very  uncertain.  Bernard  had  a 
son  Alexander,  who  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Roger,  who  in  turn  handed  on 
his  property  to  his  son  Patrick.^  The  last  named  was  li\-ing  in  1286,  when  a 
certain  Walter  of  Howtel  sued  him  for  resisting  the  taking  of  certain  of 
his  cattle,  which  the  latter  claimed  by  way  of  damages  recovered  at  law,* 
and  in  1291,  when  he  successfully  resisted  an  action  for  disseisin  brought  by 
the  same  Walter.^  Though  this  Patrick  seems  to  have  been  the  head  of 
the  family,  there  were  at  least  two  other  sons  of  Alexander  of  Howtel  who 
held  land  in  the  township.  A  certain  Patrick,  son  of  Alexander  of  Howtel, 
gave  to  Kirkham  priory  lands  which  he  held  of  his  brother  Roger,  a  grant 
confirmed  by  the  latter,^  and  this  same  Roger  alludes  in  one  of  his  charters 
to  lands  formerly  held  by  his  brother  Robert.''  This  Robert  had  evidently 
predeceased  his  brothers,  and  he  was  probably  the  father  of  Alan,  son  of 
Robert  of  Howtel,  who  with  Roger,  son  of  Alexander,  undertook  not  to  plough 
up  certain  common  pasture  in  the  vill.^  This  Alan  was  probably  the  grand- 
father of  Hugh  of  Howtel,  over  whose  guardianship  there  was  litigation  in 
1280.  A  certain  Alan  of  Howtel  claimed  the  guardianship  on  the  ground  that 
Hugh's  father,  Walter,  had  held  of  him  by  knight's  service,  but  the  master 
of  St.  Thomas,  Bolton,  had  already  assumed  possession  of  the  heir,^  and  from 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  77.  -  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  pp.  1-2. 

'  Roger  confirmed  gifts  of  land  made  by  his  father  Roger  and  his  grandfather  .-Mexander  son  of  Bernard 
of  Howtel.     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  76. 

*  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  63,  m.  49 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  181-182. 

^  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  127,  m.  56 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xiii.  p.  320.        A  Patrick,  son  of  Roger 
of  Howtel,  is  also  mentioned  in  1305.     Assize  Roll,  34  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  p.  289. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  77.  '  Ibid.  '  Ibid.  fols.  76-77. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  34  m.  15 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  p.  407. 

Vol.   XI.  25 


a  case  of  1305  it  seems  that  he  succeeded  in  establishing  his  right.  In  this 
latter  year  Hugh,  son  of  Walter  of  Howtel,  accused  Walter,  son  of  Alan  of 
Howtel,  of  disseising  him  of  certain  lands  in  the  township  of  which  his  father 
had  died  seised,  and  which  had  descended  to  him  through  his  guardian  the 
master,  whereas  Walter  declared  that  Alan,  son  of  Robert  of  Howtel,  grand- 
father of  the  plaintiff,  had  conveyed  the  property  to  him.  The  result  of 
the  action  is  not  known, ^  and  there  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  identifying 
Robert  of  Howtel  and  his  son  Alan,  great  grandfather  and  grandfather  of 
Hugh  respectively,  with  Robert,  son  of  Alexander  of  Howtel,  and  his  son  Alan, 
as  if  our  presumptive  date  for  Alexander  of  Howtel  is  correct,  there  could 
not  be  time  for  the  intervention  of  so  many  generations.  Moreover,  if  we 
accept  the  statement  of  Walter,  son  of  Alan,  as  quite  accurate,  it  is  impossible 
to  identify  his  father,  Alan,  as  the  same  Alan  who  claimed  the  overlordship 
in  1280,  since  he  declared  that  Hugh's  grandfather  alienated  the  land  to 
him  personally.  With  regard  to  this  latter  point  it  may  well  be,  that  Walter 
meant  to  imply  that  the  land  was  given  to  his  ancestors,  and  with  regard 
to  the  former  difficulty  the  corroboration  of  the  descent  is  so  strong,  that  we 
may  well  surmise  that  Alexander  of  Howtel  flourished  at  a  date  earlier  than 
the  thirteenth  century. 

It  is  hard  to  identify  the  Alan  of  Howtel,  who  claimed  the  guardianship 
of  Hugh  of  Howtel,  but  he  probably  belonged  to  the  family  founded  by 
Bernard  of  Howtel,  and  was  the  Alan  of  Howtel  who  confirmed  all  the  grants 
to  Kirkham  priory  made  by  Alexander  and  his  son  Roger.  A  gift  of  his  own 
was  confirmed  by  Patrick  of  Howtel, ^  so  that  perhaps  we  may  be  allowed  to 
guess  that  he  was  Patrick's  brother.  He  may  have  been  the  Alan  of  Howtel, 
who,  together  with  his  brother  Thomas,  was  tried  in  1278  and  1279  ^or 
disseising  Richard  Campion  and  his  wife  Margery  of  lands  in  the  township,^  and 
who  in  1285  brought  an  action  against  William  of  Branxton  and  others  for 
fishing  by  night  in  his  pond  at  Howtel  without  licence.*  He  died  before  1299, 
when  his  widow,  Alice,  sought  dower  in  one  messuage  and  one  carucate  of  land 
in  the  vill  against  Hugh,  son  of  Walter  of  Howtel,  and  in  three  messuages  and 
one  carucate  and  four  bovates  of  land  there  against  Margaret  widow  of  Walter 

'  Assise  Roll,  34  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  pp.  290,  295-296. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  77. 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  6  F.dw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.x.  p.  47  ;    Northumberland  Assize 
Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  233. 

*  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  88,  m.  i7do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  210. 


of  Howtel.i  His  son  and  successor  was  Walter,  who  appears  as  the  wealthiest 
resident  in  the  township  in  1296,^  and  who  has  been  mentioned  above  as 
involved  in  litigation  with  Hugh  of  Howtel  in  1305.^  As  his  wife's  name 
was  Agnes,  there  can  be  no  hesitation  in  identifying  him  with  the  Walter 
of  Howtel  who  married  Agnes,  daughter  of  David  Coupland,  and  who  was 
succeeded  by  his  sons,  Thomas  and  Roger,  in  succession.^  At  any  rate  in 
1339  Roger  of  Howtel  had  to  meet  a  claim  for  a  messuage  he  held  in  Howtel 
put  forward  by  Joan  Coupland  on  the  ground  that  her  father,  Simon  Coup- 
land,  died  seised  of  it,^  but  by  1359  he  had  forfeited  his  estates  by  joining 
the  Scots.  On  July  6th  of  that  year  two  carucates  of  land  in  Howtel, 
formerly  belonging  to  Roger  of  Howtel,  and  forfeited  to  the  crown  by  reason 
of  the  late  owner's  adherence  to  the  Scots,  together  with  13  messuages  and 
300  acres  of  land  there,  formerly  the  property  of  Ellen  of  Panbury,  forfeited 
for  a  similar  reason  and  because  some  of  these  lands  held  of  the  king's 
progenitors  had  been  alienated  without  licence,  were  granted  for  a  payment 
of  100  marks  to  Sir  John  Coupland.^  Possibly  the  lands  of  Ellen  of  Pan- 
bury  had  been  alienated  to  her  by  Roger  of  Howtel  to  escape  forfeiture,  and 
the  statement  that  they  had  been  held  of  the  crown  was  doubtless  inaccurate, 
since  there  is  no  other  evidence  that  any  portion  of  Howtel  was  held  in  chief. 
Strangely  enough  it  was  at  the  request  of  Sir  John,  that  in  the  following 
September  a  pardon  was  granted  to  Roger  of  Howtel,  of  the  'king's  suit, ' 
for  good  service  done  by  him,  thereby  relieving  him  of  the  penalties  of 
outlawry  incurred  by  joining  the  Scots,  'so  that  he  stand  his  trial  if  any  one 
will  implead  him  of  felonies  and  trespasses  in  the  said  time.'^  Sir  John's  share 
in  securing  this  pardon  suggests  that  he  was  merely  holding  the  lands  till 
he  could  restore  them  to  their  original  owner,  who  was  probably  his  first 
cousin.^     The  opportunity  did  not  occur  during  his  lifetime,  but  when  his 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  129,  m.  26do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  458. 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  107. 

'  See  page  194.     This  may  be  the  same  Walter  son  of  Alan  of  Howtel  who  in  1285  accused  Alan  son  of 

Robert  of  Howtel  of  disseising  him  of  lands  in  Howtel.     Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties  13  Edw.  I. Duke's 

Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  p.  203. 

'  See  page  226.  There  is  one  dilficulty  about  this  in  that  David  Baxter  was  said  by  an  inquisition 
taken  in  1323  to  have  held  a  messuage  in  Howtel  of  Walter  of  Howtel  iCal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289) 
whereas  Walter  of  Howtel  who  married  Agnes  daughter  of  David  Coupland  died  before  1317.  (Belvoir  Deeds, 
drawer  14.)     The  evidence  however  is  such  as  to  suggest  that  a  mistake  has  been  made  in  the  inquisition. 

^  Reg.  Palat.  Durielrn.  vol.  iii.  p.  274. 

"  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  233-234  ;  Originalia,  33  Edw.  III. — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  326. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  p.  270.  '  See  under  Coupland  page  247. 


widow  in  1365  levied  a  fine  for  the  securing  of  the  extensive  estates  which 
she  and  her  husband  had  inlierited  or  acquired,  she  chose  Thomas,  son 
of  Roger  of  Howtel,  as  defendant, ^  and  by  a  separate  fine  conveyed  to  him 
what  she  described  as  the  manors  of  Shotton  and  Howtel  ■  together  with 
3  messuages,  62  acres  of  land  and  10  acres  of  meadow  in  Howtel,  in  return  for 
200  marks  of  silver. ^  By  a  series  of  deeds  enrolled  on  the  Close  Rolls  it 
appears,  that  Thomas  of  Howtel  thus  secured  the  return  of  all  the  property 
in  the  township  which  had  belonged  to  his  father,  and  in  addition  3  messuages, 
72  acres  of  land  and  10  acres  of  meadow,  which  had  formerly  belonged  to 
Sir  William  Heron,^  and  probably  had  been  purchased  by  Sir  John  Coupland 
from  him. 

Thomas  of  Howtel  is  the  last  of  his  family  of  whom  we  hear,  and  to 
whom  his  estates  or  those  of  his  relatives  descended  we  do  not  know.  Mean- 
while mention  must  be  made  of  a  few  landowners,  who,  some  of  them  at 
any  rate,  held  of  this  family.  In  1256  William  of  Coupland  and  his  wife 
Agnes  unsuccessfully  sued  Hugh  prior  of  Kirkham  for  disseising  them  of  their 
freeholding  in  the  township,*  and  Emma,  daughter  of  Daniel  Bondrick, 
claimed  a  messuage  and  4  acres  of  land  in  Howtel  from  Patrick,  son  of  Thomas 
of  Howtel,  on  the  ground  that  her  father  died  seised  thereof,  but  she 
abandoned  her  case.^  This  defendant  may  have  been  the  husband  of 
Matilda,  widow  of  Patrick  of  Howtel,  who  in.  1290  claimed  dower  against 
no  less  than  eleven  persons,  each  holding  land  in  the  township — Thomas, 
son  of  Patrick,  w^th  3  crofts  24  acres  of  land  and  i  acre  of  meadow,  Thomas 
Baxter  of  Lanton  and  his  wife  Agnes,  with  a  croft  and  3  acres  of  land,  William 
son  of  Henry  of  Howtel,  with  a  toft  and  6  acres  of  land,  Adam  Fitz-Humphrey, 
with  6  acres  of  land,  William,  son  of  Richard  of  Howtel,  with  a  toft  and  8  acres 
of  land,  Thomas  Brune,  with  6  acres  of  land,  Patrick,  son  of  Roger,  with  an 
acre  of  land,  Hugh,  son  of  Roger  of  Lanton,  and  Sirilda  his  wife,  with  six  acres 
of  land,  Michael,  son  of  John  Middleton,  with  16  acres  of  land  and  40  acres 
of  wood,  Agnes,  daughter  of  Robert  Dobun,  with  6  acres  of  land,  Adam,  son 
of  Williani  of  Branxton,  with  3  acres  of  land.**     Of  these  probably  Thomas, 

'  Pedes  Fimum,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276. 

2  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  138 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  276-277. 

'  Cal.  0/  Close  Rolls,  1364-1368,  pp.  194,  195,  199. 

■*  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  p.  i.  '  Ibid.  p.  23. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  84,  m.  08 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  pp.  457-458.   The  case  was  still  undecided 
at  Michaelmas,  1292.     De  Banco  Roll,  No.  97,  ra.  32do — Ibid.  vol.  xxviii.  pp.  14-16. 


son  of  Patrick,  was  the  plaintiff's  son.  The  property  of  Michael,  son  of  John 
Middle  ton,  was  most  probably  in  Crookhouse.^  The  very  next  year  we  find 
the  names  of  three  of  Patrick  of  Howtel's  tenants,  this  Patrick  being  doubt- 
less the  son  of  Roger  of  the  family  already  traced  above.  Gilbert  of  Sher- 
burn,  master  of  Bolton,  claimed  three  shillings  rent  from  Adam  Fitz-Jues  and 
Agnes  his  wife,  Adam  their  son,  and  Adam  son  of  William  of  Paston,  and 
Sirilda  his  wife  for  a  messuage  occupied  by  the  first  and  last  male  defendants, 
who  successfully  asserted  that  they  at  one  time  had  paid  three  shillings  a  year 
to  the  master  for  a  licence  to  brew,  but  that  they  had  surrendered  the  licence, 
and  only  owed  three  shillings  for  service  to  Patrick  of  Howtel,  of  whom  they 
held  the  messuage.^  Yet  another  name  is  added,  when  in  1292  Robert  Ayr 
of  Presson  brought  an  action  against  Robert  of  Howtel,  Adam,  son  of 
William  of  Branxton— who  had  figured  in  the  case  brought  by  Matilda,  widow 
of  Patrick  of  Howtel— and  William,  brother  of  Adam,  to  compel  them  to  keep 
an  agreement  made  between  them  in  respect  of  17J  acres  of  land  in  Howtel.^ 
This  Robert  Ayr  was  a  man  of  some  substance,  and  figured  in  the  subsidy 
roll  of  1296  with  goods  valued  at  £5  7s.  od.*  In  1347  Emma,  wife  of  William 
Bacon,  claimed  18  acres  of  land  in  the  township  on  the  ground  that  her 
fatherjohn,  son  of  Alan  of  Howtel,  had  died  seised  of  them,  but  the  defendant, 
Roger  Muschamp,  was  in  the  king's  service  beyond  the  seas,  and  so  the  case 
was  indefinitely  adjourned.^ 

The  most  important  tenants  under  the  family  of  Howtel  were  the 
Baxters,  who  also  held  land  in  the  vill  as  of  the  manor  of  Lanton.  Thomas 
Baxter  and  his  wife  Agnes  were  sued  for  dower  in  1290  by  Matilda,  widow 
of  Patrick  of  Howtel,  in  3  crofts,  24  acres  of  land  and  one  acre  of  meadow 
in  the  township,^  and  his  son  David  died  in  1323  seised  of  three  bondages 
held,  of  the  inheritance  of  Elizabeth  his  wife,  of  the  church  of  Bolton  by 
service  of  3s.  yearly,  and  one  messuage,  held,  jointly  with  his  wife,  of  Walter  of 
Howtel  by  service  of  i6d.  yearly.'^  The  holding  held  by  the  Baxters  of  the 
Howtel  family  had  been  increased  by  1361,  when  Da\'id  Baxter,  grandson  of 

'  See  page  210. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  128,  m.  i8do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxii.  pp.  387-388. 
'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  102,  m.  i24do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  7. 
'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  107. 

*  Assize  Rolls,  Divers  Counties,  18-22  Edw.  III. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  393-394- 
'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  84,  m.  68 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  457. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289.     This  property  looks  very  like  the  three  bondages  held  of  Patrick 
of  Howtel  in  1291  and  from  which  the  master  of  Bolton  vainly  claimed  a  rent  of  3s.  vide  supra. 


the  last  named  David,  was  said  to  hold  5  messuages  and  2  carucates  of  land  of 
John  Coupland,  who  had  recently  been  given  this  on  the  forfeiture  of  Roger 
of  Howtel,^  and  in  1364  this  same  man  acquired  another  2  messuages  and 
50  acres  of  land  from  Elias  Tirwhit  and  Agnes  his  wife,  of  Newcastle-upon- 
Tyne.-  In  this  same  year  David  is  mentioned  as  holding  13  messuages  and 
300  acres  of  land  in  Howtel  of  Henry  Strother  of  Kirknewton,  as  of  his  manor 
of  Lanton,  by  homage  fealty  and  scutage,  4od.  for  castle  ward  and  2s.  for 
cornage,  and  with  the  obligation  of  grinding  his  demesne  com  at  the  mill  of 
Lanton,^  the  overlordship  having  belonged  to  the  Corbets  and  having  been 
conveyed  to  William  Strother  and  his  wife  Joan  when  they  acquired  the  manor 
of  Lanton  in  1318.*  In  1369,  when  David  Baxter's  widow,  Margaret,  was 
assigned  dower  in  Howtel,  she  received  three  husband  lands,  one  in  the 
occupation  of  Elias  Tirwhit,  another  husband  land  and  two  cottar  holdings,  one 
lying  next  to  the  chief  messuage  on  the  west  and  the  other  inhabited  by  Thomas 
Lisle,  with  obligation  to  bear  her  third  share  of  annual  charges  of  two  marks 
to  Elias  Tirwhit  during  the  life  of  his  wife,  of  lod.  due  to  Thomas  of  Howtel 
and  his  heirs,  and  of  los.  due  to  the  manor  of  Lanton  '  for  the  lands  which 
belonged  to  the  said  David  in  the  vill  of  Howtel.'^  As  a  consequence  of  this 
allotment  of  dower  Margaret  Baxter  was  brought  into  conflict  with  her 
mother-in-law,  who  in  1371  claimed  that  her  own  dower  rights  had  been 
infringed,  but  after  the  settlement  of  this  dispute  in  1374,^  the  family 
disappears  from  the  annals  of  Howtel,  save  that  in  1589  a  fine  was  levied 
between  Cuthbert  Proctor  and  John  Baxter,  with  whom  was  joined  his  wife 
Margaret,  with  regard  to  lands  in  the  township.' 

From  1374  to  1452  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  any  record  of  property 
owners  in  Howtel,  and  then  an  entirely  new  set  of  families  are  found  there. 
The  most  prominent  of  these,    and   the   one  which   ultimately  owned  the 

'  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1360-1364,  p.  217. 

•  Pedes  Finium,  38  Edw.  III.  No.  131 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  264-265. 

"  Coram  liege  Roll,  No.  413,  m.  73 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxv.  pp.  135-142. 

'  It  is  not  then  mentioned,  presumably  because  it  was  taken  as  included  in  the  term  'manor  of  Lanton," 
but  when  he  succeeded  in  1330  Henry  Strother  secured  a  formal  release  of  his  rights  therein  from  Roger 
Corbet  ILaing  Charters,  p.  lo).  During  the  i6th  century  there  arc  two  allusions  to  the  Strothcrs  holding 
property  in  Howtel.  In  1568  Roger  Strother  of  Kirknewton  held  certain  lands  there  in  capite  {Liber 
l-eodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixix.),  and,  when  William  Strother  entailed  his  property  in  1579 
he  included  lands  in  Howtel  therein  (Laing  Charters,  p.  244). 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 

°  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  441,  m.  i28do. 

'  Feet  of  Fines,  I6th  century,  pp.  56-57. 




Arms  Silver  a  saltire  gules  between  four  leaves  vert,  on  a  chief  azure  a 
lion's  head  rased  between  two  battle-axes  gold.  Crest  :  A 
dexter  arm  charged  with  three  pellets,  in  the  hand  a  bunch  of 
burdock.     Foster's  Visitations  of  Northumberland,  p.  2j. 

John  Burrell  of   Newton   in    Glendale,    29th 
September,  1387 ;  had  a  grant  of  a  moiety 
of  West  Newton  in  trust  (6). 

John    Burrell   of  Howtel,    by  charter  = 
given  at  Howtel,  ist  May,  1454,  set- 
tled  lands    on    his  son    William   in    ; 
tail  male,  with  remainders  over  {h).       [ 

Robert  Burrell, 
fourth  in  the 
entail  of  istMay, 
1454  (h). 

Thomas     Burrell, 
fifth  in  the  en- 
tail of  I  St  May, 
1454  {/.). 

Andrew  Burrell, 
sixth  in  the  en- 
tail'of  I  St  May, 

145*4  w. 


William  Burrell,  who  ist  May,  1454,  received 
Howtel  by  grant  from  his  father  (h). 

John   Burrell,  second  in  the 
entail  of  ist  May,  1454  (A). 

Roger    Burrell,    third    in    the 
entail  of  ist  May,  1454  (A). 

...  Burrell,  whose  tower  at  Howtel  was  cast  down  by  the  Scots  in  1496  (c). 

John  Burrell  of  Howtel  {a),  who  in   1538  headed  a  contingent  of  sixteen  able  horsemen  =  Elizabeth,  daughter 

from  Howtel  at  a  muster  taken  on  Coldmartin  Heath,  six  of  whom  bore  the  surname 
of  Burrell  (/) ;    his  tower  at  Howtel  ruinous  in  1541  (c). 

of   Reveley 

of  Ancroft  (a). 

John  Burrell  (a)  of  Howtel  whose  tower  was  reported   in  1584 
to  be  ruinous  (c). 

Elizabeth,    daughter  of   Oswald   Collingwood 
of  Etal  (a) 

William  Burrell  of  Howtel,  who  =  Elizabeth, 
entered  his  pedigree  at  St.  George's  I  daughter 
Visitation  in  161 5  [a);  bur.  at  Ber-  '  of  George 
wick  4th  Jan.,  1633/4,  as  "William  I  Morton 
Burrell  of  Howtel,  gent."  1     of  Morton 

Thomas  Burrell 
(fl)  of  Milfield. 
adm.  of  personal 
estate,  30th 
June,  1615. 

I    I    I    I    I    I 
Lancelot  Burrell  (a). 

John  Burrell  (a). 

Anthony  Burrell  (a). 

Fortune,  wife  of  James  Law  (a). 

Catherine,  wife  of  Gerard  Redhead  of 

Morpeth  (a). 

Barbara,  wife  of  John  Hoy  (a). 

William  Burrell  was  three  years  of  age   in    1615   (a);  = 

Tappears  freeholders  list  of  1639] ;  was  rated  for  lands 
in  Howtel  in  1663.  I 

William  Burrell  owned  lands  in  Howtel  in  1663,  while  his  father  still  lived  (/). 

Thomas  Burrell  of  Howtel  voted  at  the  election  of  knights  of  the  shire  in  1698  (e). 

William  Burrell  of  Ho%vtel  voted  at  the  election  of  knights  of   the   shire   in    1710   and  =  Elizabeth     (a)    sole 
1715  {e);  will  dated  nth  .'\pril,  1719;  proved  1720  Id) ;  to  be  buried  in  the  south  porch  executrix    of    hes 

of  Kirknewton.  I      husband's  will  (d). 

William  Burrell  of  Howtel  : 
voted  at  the  election  of 
knights  of  the  shire  in 
1722  (f);  was  residing  at 
Kilham  when  he  made 
his  will  24th  July,  I7?i  ■ 
proved  1732  [d]  ;  buried 
at  Kirknewton  (g). 

Dorothy,  dau.  of  Robert 
Allan  of  Kilham  ;  art. 
before  marriage  3rd  and 
4th  July,  1722  (ft);  mar.  at 
Chatton  5th  July,  1723: 
executrix  of  her  hus- 
band's will;  bur.  at  Kirk- 
newton, 8th  Apr.,  1794  (»). 

John  Burrell,  second 
son,  named  in  his 
father's  will  (d) ;  voted 
at  the  election  of 
knights  of  the  shire, 
in  1722,  and  1734, 
for  lands  in  Howtel 

wife   of   .^rchbold, 

whose  son  and  dau.  are 
named  in  her  father's  will, 
1719  (rf).  William  Arch- 
bold  of  Howtel  voted  at 
the  election  of  knights  of 
the  shire  in  1722  and 
1734  for  lands  in  Howtel. 



William  Burrell  of  Howtel  in    1747  =  Anne  Allan  of  Robert 

purchased    the    cast    demesne    of    I       Howtel;  mar.  Burrell, 

Howtel  (A) ;  voted  at  the  election  at    Kirknew-  second  son, 

of  knights  of  the  shire  in  i  748  and  ton.  June  25,  named     in 

'774(''):    «i  I'eut.  in  Northumber-  1766(1);  bur.  his  father's 

land  militia.  1759;  major  in  1764;  there       nth  will        (d)  ; 

died  at  Wooler;    buried  Kirknew-  June,  1778.  dead  before 

ton,  26th    Jan.,   1783;    intestate.  1783. 

I    I 

Margaret,  named  in  her  father  s  will ; 
married  at  Berwick,  loth  December, 
1749,  Thomas  Mills  of  Woodside, 
parish  of  Lowick,  registered  at 
Lowick;  they  afterwards  resided 
at  Howtel. 

Susanna,  died  at  Kilham  ;  buried  icth 
August,  172/9]  ig). 

I  I 

Thomas  Burrell,  Martha,  daughter  and  co-heir,  bapt. 

son  and  heir,  ist     March,     1772;     married     at 

died     in     his  Wooler,   6th    July,     1802,    as    his 

father's     life-  first  wife,  Robert  Grey,  successively 

time ;     buried  of   Alnwick,    Plainfield,     Dancing 

at      Kirknew-  Hall  and  Plessey  Newhouses.      He 

ton,  2nd  Feb-  died  8th  Feb.  1858,  aged  76,     M.I. 

ruary,  1771.  Alnwick  Cemetery.  ^ 

(a)  St.  George's  Visitation  of  Northumberland,  1615. 

(6)  Laing  Charters,  p.  21. 

(c)   Bates,  Border  Holds,  pp.  34,  72,  382. 

(rf)  Raine,  Test.  Dunelm. 

(e)  Northumberland  Poll  Books. 

(f)  Arch  Aeliana,  o.s.  vol.  iv.  p.  199. 

Dorothy,  daughter 
and  coheir,  born 
14th  August,  1774 
(?) ;  died  at  Plain- 
field  ;  buried  at 
Kirknewton,  14th 
July,  1808,  aged 
33  te)- 

Anne  Selby.  daughter  and 
co-heir,  born  28th 
August,  1777  (?);  mar. 
at  Wooler,  6th  April, 
1805,  John  Ord  of  the 
parish  of  Morebattle, 
afterwards  of  Witton , 
near  Kelso.  4, 

(g)  Kirknewton  Register. 

(h)   Waterford  Documents,  vo\.m.  -p^.  117-11J 
(i)   Newcastle  Courant,  5th  July,  1766. 
(A)  Howtel  Deeds. 

{l\   P.R.O.   Chancery  Proceedings,    Bridges 
Division,  Bundle  438,  No.  93. 

larger  part  of  the  township,  is  that  of  Burrell.  In  1454  John  Burrell  of 
Howtel  gave  in  tail  male  one  husbandland,  being  the  whole  of  his  property 
in  the  vill  which  he  had  of  the  gift  of  John  Rogerson  of  Branxton,  to  his 
son  William,  with  successive  remainders  in  tail  male  to  John  and  Roger, 
sons,  and  Robert,  Thomas  and  Andrew,  brothers  of  the  donor. ^  About  a 
century  later  the  Burrells  were  the  chief  landowners,  for  in  1541  the  vill, 
containing  ten  husbandlands,  was  'of  one  John  Burrell's  inherytaunce.'^ 
though  in  1568  John  Burrell  was  said  not  to  hold  the  vill  but  only  certain 
lands  therein  in  capite.^  A  man  of  the  same  name  was  defendant  in  a 
fine  of  1576  levied  by  Sir  John  Forster  in  respect  of  20  acres  of  land,  10  acres 
of  meadow,  40  acres  of  pasture  and  common  of  pasture  in  Howtel,*  and  in 
1580  the  record  of  the  muster  of  the  East  Marches  found  the  queen.  Sir  John 
Forster  and  John  Burrell  to  be  the  three  principal  landowners,  whose 
property  had  been  mainly  turned  into  pasture.^  In  1591  this  Sir  John  Forster 
held  Howtel  and  also  other  lands  there  in  fee,  as  of  the  manor  of  Wark,^  and 

'  Waterford  Documents,  vol.  iii.  pp.  117-118.     An  incomplete  note  of  tliis  document  is  in  Hist.  MSS. 
Rep.  xi.  app.  vii.  p.  72,  No.  140. 

^  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

'  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixix. 

*  Feet  oj  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  36.  '  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  157. 

»  Inq.  p.m.  33  Elizabeth,  Thomas  Grey,  Kt. — Lambert  MS. 


in  1584  the  tower  belonged  to  'John  Burrell  gentleman.'^  Early  in  the 
following  century  we  find  allusion  in  a  charter  to  '  John  Burrell  and 
William  Burrell,  his  son  and  heir  apparent,  of  Howtel,'^  and  William  Burrell 
of  Howtel  appears  in  a  list  of  freeholders  of  1638.^  According  to  the  Rate 
Book  of  1663  the  landowners  in  the  township  were  William  Burrell,  John 
Reed  and  David  Edington,  whose  joint  rent  roll  was  ;^I40,  while  Henry 
Thomson  held  land  the  value  of  which  is  not  estimated  and  George  Grey 
was  separately  assessed  for  Tuperee  at  a  rental  of  £20.*  The  very  next 
year  William  Burrell,  senior,  of  Howtel,  Thomas  Trotter  of  Eghngham,  clerk, 
Gilbert  Swinhoe  of  Berrington,  and  James  Swinhoe  of  Chatton,  were  joined 
together  in  a  grant  to  John  Reed,  junior,  of  Kirknewton,  of  the  freehold 
of  Reedsford,  '  the  farmhold  called  Anthoney's  land  in  Howtel '  and  '  the 
closes  called  Thorney  dykes,  alias  Wills  Close,  Symms  Close  and  John's  lands 
in  Howtel,'  the  first  of  these  closes  being  in  the  occupation  of  William,  son  of 
Launcelot  Burrell.^  James  Swinhoe  of  Chatton  had  been  a  landowner  in 
Howtel  during  the  Civil  War,  for  when  in  1649  he  compounded  for  delinquency, 
he  was  found  to  own  '  a  tenement  and  lands  called  Keppey,  parish  of  Kirk- 
newton, yearly  value  before  the  war  £10,'^  a  holding  to  be  identified  with 
the  farm  known  as  Kypie  on  the  extreme  eastern  side  of  the  township.  In 
1666  William  Burrell  owned  property  in  the  township,  the  reversion  of 
which  belonged  to  his  son  William,  who  also  held  land  there  in  his  own 
right.  This  last  was  mortgaged  in  that  year,  and  in  1684  the  mortgagees 
foreclosed  and  secured  a  moiety  of  the  premises  but  in  turn  they  were 
ejected  by  \\'illiam  Burrell,  the  younger,  in  1686.'  Another  branch  of  the 
same  family  also  held  lands  there,  and  in  1687  another  William  Burrell 
complained  that  Gilbert  Reed,  son  of  John  Reed,  claimed  his  property- 
known  as  Hornidell  or  the  King's  Land,  and  Carmell's  Close  on  the  strength 
of  the  conveyance  of  1664.  Gilbert  indeed  claimed  that  these  lands  were 
identical  with  the  'Will's  Close  alias  Thorny  Dykes'  of  that  purchase,  and 
that  William  Burrell  had  never  been  more  than  a  tenant.  The  latter  how- 
ever obtained  a  verdict  in  his  favour  at  the  assizes  of  1686,  though  the  matter 

'  Report  of  Commissioners,  1584 — Border  Holds,  p.  72.  -  20th  May,  1607,  Laing  Charters,  p.  367. 

'  List  of  Northumberland  Freeholders,  1638 — Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  ii.  p.  325. 

•  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

^  Deed  dated  June  3rd,  1664 — Arch.  Aeliana,  3rd  series,  vol.  v,  p.  no. 

'  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  353. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges  Division,  bundle  438,  No.  93. 

Vol.   XI.  26 


did  not  rest  there, ^  and  the  struggle  lasted  at  least  till  1694,  when  the  various 
disputants  were  making  the  place  lively  by  taking  the  law  into  their  own 
hands.     In  that  year  William  Burrell,  Benjamin  Burrell,  the  latter's  wife 
Isabel,  and  others  were  accused  of  breaking  into  the  barn  of  Gilbert  Swinhoe 
of  Howtel,  who  further  deposed  that  Benjamin  and  Isabel  had  so  beaten 
William  Burrell,  senior,  of  Howtel  with  'chimney  spars'  that  he  was  not 
likely  to  recover.     Others  were  accused  of  threatening  Gilbert  Swinhoe  with 
all  kinds  of  violence  and  declaring  that  'if  they  had  Sir  Francis  Blake  they 
would   trample   him   with   their   feet,    for   he   was   a   great   rogue,'    while 
Benjamin  Burrell,  his  wife,  and  others  accused  Gilbert  Swinhoe,  his  wife 
Isabel,  William  Burrell,  Michael  Burrell  and  others,  of  forcibly  turning  them 
out  of  their  homes. ^     The  Burrells  continued  to  be  the  chief  landowners- 
throughout  the  eighteenth  century.     Their  holding  at  the  beginning  of  that 
century  consisted  of  the  low  or  west  demesne,  but  in  1747  William  Burrell 
of  Howtel  and  Kilham  purchased  the  east  demesne  from  Peter  Hawke  of 
Longparish,  county  Southampton,  whose  family  seems  to  have  acquired  it 
from  Tristram  Reed  of  Morpeth,^  and  in  1777,  when  Howtel  Common  was 
enclosed,  besides  William  Burrell,  the  landowners  who  were  given  a  share 
by  reason  of  their  property  in  the  township  were  Sir  John  Hussey  Delaval, 
Sir  Francis  Blake,  Henry  Collingwood  and  the  vicar  of  Holy  Island.*     The 
last-named's  holding  was  Tuperee,  which  had  been  bought  in  1732   with 
a  sum   of  £800   provided  for   the   augmentation  of  the  benefice.^       This 
remained     as    part     of     the     endowment     of     the     benefice     till      1921, 
when   it    was    sold    to    Lord    Joicey.       Reedsford    and    its    appurtenant 
closes    had    by    now    passed    from    the     Reed     family,    from    which    it 
doubtless  got  its  name.     From  1700  onwards  Gilbert  Reed  had  had  endless 
trouble  with  mortgagees  and  for  a  time  had  been  dispossessed  of  his  property.^ 
After  his  death,  Robert  Ilderton  of   Newcastle,  the  mortgagee,  foreclosed 
in  1719,  and  his  agent  had  difficulty  in  entering  on  the  property.     When  the 
latter  arrived  at  "  the  mansion  house"  of  Reedsford,  he  found  the  late  owner's 
widow,  Christian  Reed,  and  her  son  William,  together  with  her  servant 
Margaret  Guttery  in  possession.      They  refused  to  leave,   declaring  that 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges  Division,  bundle  147,  No.  44. 

*  Quarter  Sessions  Records,  Northumberland,  anno  1694.  '  Howtel  Deeds. 

*  Act  for  dividing  Howtel  Common  17  Geo.  HI. — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  272. 
'  Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  154. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  284,  No.  75,  bundle  333,  No.  37. 



the  property  belonged  to  the  widow,  and  they  had  to  be  forcibly  ejected. ^ 
Robert  Ilderton,  as  mortgagee  in  possession,  seems  to  have  sold  the  closes  to 
William  BurrelP  and  Reedsford  itself  to  Edward  Shepherd,  who  farmed  at 
Rockmoor  House  in  the  parish  of  Embleton.  The  latter  raised  a  mortgage  on 
Reedsford  in  June,  1726,  voted  for  it  at  the  election  of  knights  of  the  shire 
in  1734,  and  by  will,  dated  26th  January,  1738,  gave  it  in  trust  to  his 
daughters,  his  son  Thomas  Shepherd  being  otherwise  provided  for.  As  a 
result  of  family  dissensions  Reedsford  was  sold  under  a  decree  of  court  in 
1760^  to  James  Pinkerton  of  Belford,  who  is  described  as  of  Reedsford  in 
1774,  when  he  voted  at  the  election  of  knights  of  the  shire.  His  grandson, 
William  Pinkerton,  voted  for  Reedsford  in  1826,  and  the  property  was  adver- 
tised for  sale  in  July,  1831,  when  it  was  stated  to  comprise  218  acres,  let  at 
£365  per  annum  It  was  sold  soon  afterwards,  and  is  now  the  property  of 
Mr.  G.  G.  Rea  of  Doddington.* 

'  Session  Records  of  Northumberland,  Christmas  Session,  1719,  No.  97 — Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club, 
vol.  xxiii.  pp.  236-237. 

^  See  page  204. 

'  Reedsford,  '  a  freehold  estate  belonging  to  Mr.  Edward  Shepherd '  and  let  at  ;^3o,  with  rights  on  Howtel 
Common,  was  advertised  for  sale  in  the  Newcastle  Courant,  13th  September,  1746. 

*  This  descent  of  Reedsford  is  taken  from  Mr.  J.  C.  Hodgson's  account  of  Reedsford  in  Berwickshire 
Naturalists'  Club   vol.  xxiii.  pp.  236-237. 


[Thomas]  Pinkerton  of  Detchant,  buried  =  , 
28th  April,  1741  (a)].  I 

James    Pinkerton    of  ^^  Mary    Jeffrey,    mar- 

Belford.  i8th  April, 
1760,  purchased 
Reedsford  from 

Edward  Shepherd  ; 
died  there  ;  buried 
14th    March,     1774 

ried,  4th  December, 
1725  (a)  ;  died  at 
Belford  Moor ; 

buried  loth  Jan- 
uary, 1761  (a). 

Thomas     Pinkerton     of    Easington, 
parish  of  Belford ;  party  to  deed, 
1 8th  April,  1760. 

-Ann  ....  [buried 
nth  February, 

Thomas,     buried 
27th  June,   1768 

Thomas  Pinkerton  of  Bows-  : 
den,  brother  and  heir ;  born 
Catford  Law  ;  baptised  25th 
September,  1726  {a);  bro- 
ther and  heir  of  James 
Pinkerton,  under  whose  will 
he  took  Reedsford  ;  died  at 
Berwick  ist  February',  1802  , 
aged  76  (a,  b);  will  dated 
6th  January,  1797. 

Anne,  daughter  and  co- 
heir of  William  Grieve 
of  Grievestead  ;  bapt- 
ised at  Norham  15th 
May,  1739;  married 
there  26th  May,  1760  ; 
owner  of  lands  in  the 
parish  of  Norham  ;  died 
at  Berwick  2ist.\ugust, 
1802,  aged  67  (a,  b). 


Margaret,  buried 
29th  May,  1758 

Ann,   buried 
19th    May, 



James  Pinkerton  of  Bowsden,  proprietor  of 
Reedsford,  in  1773  purchased  the  tithes 
of  corn,  wool  and  lamb  arising  from 
Reedsford  and  Tuparee  ;  voted  at  the 
election  of  knights  of  the  shire  in  1774; 
died  at  Bowsden,  buried  at  Ford,  12th 
May.  1794  (a)  ;  N\'ill  dated  9th  August, 
1786:  proved,  1794.  (Query  son  of 
James  Pinkerton  of  lielford  by  an 
earlier  marriage.) 



James  Pinkerton  of  Reeds- 
ford,  circa  1806  pur- 
chased the  shares  of  his 
brother  and  sisters  in 
Reedsford  ;  and  in  18 11 
purchased  part  of  How- 
tell  Common  ;  died  at 
Mindrum  Mill  13th 
August,  i8i2,  aged  40 
(a,  b) ;  administration  of 
his  personal  estate  7th 
January,  1813,  granted 
to  his  brother. 

William  Pinkerton  of  ■. 
Bowsden  and  of  Reeds- 
ford, brother  and 
heir  ;  was  residing  in 
Newcastle  in  1826, 
when  he  voted  at  the 
election  of  knights  of 
the   shire  ;    died  there 

8th  Mav, 
62  ;  will 

ember,  1827. 

1827,     aged 

dated    i 3th 

1826;  proved 

15th     Sept- 

I  I  I  I 
Rachel  Thomp-  Mary,  first  wife  of  William  Landless 
son  of  the  of  Easington,  parish  of  Belford  ; 
parish  of  Ky-  lieut.  R.N.,  one  of  Collingwood's 
loe  ;  married  officers  ;  she  died  in  her  father's 
at  Carham  lifetime  leaving  a  son,  William,  who 
nth  Deccm-  was  buried  7th  August,  1800,  aged 
bjer,         1806  ;  6  years  (a). 

died  at  An-  Anne,  died  at  Coldstream,  i  ith  June, 
croft,        3rd  1827,  aged  52  ;   unmarried  (b). 

February,  Isabella,  married  at  Carham,  8th 
1849,  aged  81  January,  18:1,  her  cousin  William 
(6).  Smith  of  Shedlaw. 

Sarah,  died  at  Berwick,  30th  Decem- 
ber, 1800,  aged  34,  unmarried  (a,  b). 

Thomas  Pinkerton  of  Ancroft 
Steads  and  of  Reedsford  ;  sold 
his  interest  in  Reedsford  circa 
1832  ;  voted  at  the  election 
of  knights  of  the  shire,  in 
1841,  for  Ancroft- 

Anne  (6)    .  .  .  . 

[or  Rachel  (c)  ]. 


William    Pinkerton 
circa    1832    when 

of  Carlisle 
he  sold  his 
interest  in  Reedsford  ;  emi- 
grated to  Adelaide,  South 
A.ustralia ;  thence  to  New 
Mexico,  where  he  became  a 
"  Sheep  King."  Died  Wagon 
Mor,  New  Mexico,  in  1892  (c). 

Eleanor,  daughter  of 
Grieve  Smith  of 
Budle  ;  married  at 
Ford,  23rd  January, 
1838  (a)  ;  died  in 
New  Mexico,  1891 


m    1842, 

Thomas    Pinkerton,   died 

infant  (b). 

James  Pinkerton  of  Hackney,  Middlesex,  j. 
Other  issue,  died  young. 

William  Pinker- 
ton, living  1915, 
at  Irabella,  Aus- 
tralia (c). 

William     Pink- : 
e  r  t  o  n ,       of 
Moulesay,  Cali- 
fornia (c). 

Mary        Eleanor    Culley,    wife   of    Hugh    Ross 
Earle         Steavenson. 

(c).  Sarah  Spours,  wife  of  W.  T.  Patterson, 

died  before  1915  (c). 

I     I     I     I     I 

Rachel  Selina,  born  19th  December,  1838  ; 
married  7th  October,  1856,  William 
Hunter  Reynolds,  living  1915  (c).  -.]/ 

Eleanor  Culley,  died  before  1915  (c). 

Sarah  Spours,  died  before  1915  (c). 

Ruby  Eliza,  died  before  1915  (c). 

Mary,  wife  of  John  McKellar,  New  Zealand' 
afterwards  of  Sweetwater,  New  Mexico,  of 
the  family  of  McKellar  of  Lerigs, 
Argyleshire  (c).  4, 

William  Pinkerton  (c). 
(a)  Ford  Registers. 

Eleanor  Mary  (c).  Elizabeth  (c). 

(6)  Monumental  Inscriptions,  Ford. 

Rachel  (c). 
(c)  Ex.  inf.  Mrs.  Reynolds,  191 5. 

Kypie,  once  the  property  of  James  Swinhoe  of  Chatton,  had  become 
by  1740  the  property  of  Henry  ColHngwood,  and  continued  in  his  family 
till  1824  when  Henry  Collingwood  sold  it  to  Captain  Christopher  Askew.  ^ 
The  rest  of  the  township  was  gathered  together  into  one  property  ultimately 
by  Alexander  Davison  of  Swarland.  In  1802  the  three  co-heiresses  of  the 
Burrell  family,  Martha,  Dorothy,  and  Ann  Selby  Burrell  sold  the  '  tower 
or  capital  messuage '  with  all  the  property  of  their  late  father,  William  Burrell, 
in  Howtel,  commonly  called  the  'West  Demesne,'  also  the  lands  known  as 
the  '  East  Demesne,'  formerly  in  the  possession  of  Peter  Harker,  and  the  lands 
known  as  'Anthony's  Lands,'  '  Thorn  ey  Dykes,'  a/zas 'Will's  Close,'  'Symm's 
Close,'  and  'John's  Lands,'  formerly  in  the  possession  of  Robert  Ilderton, 

'  Pallinsburn  Deeds. 


to  Alexander  Davison,  who  in  the  following  }'ear  purchased  small  parcels 
of  land  in  the  township  from  James  Hall  and  Ann  Wright,  widow  of  William 
Wright.  In  1808  the  same  purchaser  acquired  between  two  and  three  acres 
from  Robert  Mills,  who  in  turn  had  purchased  from  John  Burrell,  and  in 
1810  another  small  property  from  Thomas  Hook,  who  had  acquired  it  from 
Sir  Francis  Blake  in  the  previous  year,  it  having  passed  under  the  will  of 
John,  Lord  Delaval,  dated  24th  September,  1806.^  The  whole  estate,  thus 
acquired,  comprised  some  540  acres,  of  which  about  20  or  30  on  the  north 
eastern  boundary  were  formerly  part  of  Branxton  Common,  and  about 
100  on  the  south  eastern  boundary  of  Howtel  Common.  It  was  bounded 
on  the  north  by  Branxton  and  Thornington,  on  the  south  by  Howtel  Hill 
belonging  to  lord  Tankerville  and  by  Kypie  belonging  to  Sir  Henry  Askew, 
on  the  east  by  Kypie  and  Flodden  and  on  the  west  by  Thornington,  Reedsford 
and  Tuperee.2  On  the  death  of  Alexander  Davison  all  this  passed  to  his 
son,  Hugh  Percy  Davison,  and  he  sold  it  in  1847  to  John  Ord  of  Nisbet  in 
Berwickshire,  who  in  turn  sold  in  1871  to  Watson  Askew,  afterwards  Watson 
Askew  Robertson  of  Pallinsbum,  who  already  owned  Kypie  in  the  township. 
The  last  named  died  in  igo6,  leaving  his  estate  to  his  widow,  the  Hon.  Sarah 
Askew  Robertson,  for  her  life,  and  after  her  death  to  his  son,  William  Hagger- 
ston  Askew,  for  life,  with  remainder  to  his  issue.  In  igii  the  How'tel  estate 
was  sold  to  Charles  Mitchell  of  Jesmond  Towers,  who  in  1912  conveyed  it 
to  James,  Baron  Joicey.^  In  1913  Lord  Joicey  added  to  this  property 
19  acres,  called  Howtel  Pasture,  by  purchase  from  the  earl  of  Tankerville, 
to  whose  ancestors  it  had  been  allotted  on  the  division  of  Howtel  Common.* 
KiRKHAM  Priory  Lands. — By  a  series  of  comparatively  small  gifts  the 
canons  of  Kirkham  acquired  a  good  deal  of  property  in  Howtel.  At  various 
times  Alexander  of  Howtel  gave  them  an  acre  of  meadow  lying  next  to  Molbes- 

•  Howtel  Deeds.  The  property  bought  from  Sir  Francis  Blake  can  be  traced  back  to  1533,  when  Sir 
William  Heron  of  Ford  conveyed  his  property  to  trustees  and  included  therein  '  all  his  lands  and  tenements 
in  Howtel.'  (Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  i.  pp.  53-55.)  Under  the  terms  of  this  deed  the  property  passed 
at  his  death  in  1535  to  his  widow  .\gnes  for  life  and  then  to  his  granddaughter  and  heiress  Elizabeth 
(Iiiq.  p.m.  28  Hen.  VIII.  No.  116 — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  239),  who  married  Thomas  Carr.  (In  the 
inquisition  taken  at  her  death  the  only  trace  of  Howtel  property  is  'a  mill  in  Houghton.'  P.R.O.  Inq. 
p.m.  Court  oj  Wards,  vol.  8.  No.  42.)  A  portion  of  this  was  ahenated,  for  in  1602  certain  lands  in  the 
township  were  described  as  'late  of  WilUam  Carr,  esqr.,  and  now  John  Burrell's.'  (P.K.O.  Exchequer 
Special  Commissions,  Northumberland,  44  EUz.  No.  1761.)  Wilham  Carr's  son  Thomas  included 
'divers  lands  tenements  and  hereditaments  in  Howtel'  in  the  lands  he  entailed  in  1606  (Inq.  p.m.  21  Chas.  I.— 
Carr  Family,  vol.  ii.  pp.  120-121),  and  these  passed  ultimately  with  the  rest  of  the  Ford  estate  to  Sir  Francis 
Blake.  (Indenture  of  Fine,  Hilar>^  2g  Chas.  II. — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  141)  and  from  him  to  the  Delavals. 
In  1760  John  Delaval  paid  land  tax  for  'Houtle.'     (Receipt  in  Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  82.) 

=  Declaration  made  at  Howtel  20th  May,  1S47,  before  a  Commissioner  for  Oaths  by  James  Brown  of 
Howtel — apud  Messrs.  Dickson,  .\rcher  and  Thorp,  Alnwick. 

'  Howtel  Deeds.  '  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club  vol.  .xxii.  p.  30S. 


knol,  a  meadow  of  an  acre  and  one  rood  lying  on  the  east  side  of  tlie  path  leading 
from  Kilham  to  Howtel,  and  a  toft  and  croft  and  6  acres  of  land  on  the 
western  side  of  the  vill  free  from  multure  and  all  secular  service.^     He  also 
gave  them  pasturage  for  500  sheep,  a  gift  augmented  to  600  sheep  by  his  son 
Roger,  who  gave  permission  for  the  building  of  a  bridge  over  the  Bowmont 
to  allow  the  sheep  to  pass  backwards  and  forwards  between  Kilham  and 
Howtel. 2    Roger  of  Howtel  was  very  generous  to  the  canons.    By  successive 
gifts  he  gave  them  8  acres  of  land,  5  acres  of  land  in  Molbesknol  on  the  north 
side  of  the  road  called  Kirkgate  adjacent  to  the  township  of  Kilham,  two 
acres  of  land  near  to  Lelccelwyrlimes,  two  acres  of  meadow,  and  a  toft  and 
croft  with  a  piece  of  land  and  4s.  rent.     His  largest  individual  gift  consisted 
of  32  acres  of  land,  a  toft  and  croft,  once  the  property  of  the  donor's  brother 
Robert,    a   meadow    of    12    acres  called   Molbesknol   near    the    Kirkgate, 
one  of  4  acres,  called  the  Buttes,  lying  east  of  the  Park,  16  acres  of  land  at 
Warmelawe  and  Waterlawe  and  permission  to  make  a  sheepfold.^      From 
a  later  charter  it  appears  that  the  sheepfold  was  erected  in  Molbesknol,^ 
and  that  Alan  of  Howtel  added  a  plot  of  land  in  Warmelawe  for  another.^ 
Roger  of  Howtel's  brother,  Patrick,  followed  the  traditions  of  his  house  in 
presenting  the  canons  with  two  selions  of  land,  a  toft  and  6  acres  of  land 
with  common  of  pasture  on  one  bovate  of  land  and  a  piece  of  land  on  the 
banks  of  Bowmont  called  Spechynholme,^  while  his  son,  also  named  Patrick, 
added  to  the  canons'  rights  of  common  pasture  on  all  his  arable  land  after 
the  removal  of  the  crops.''     From  Alan  of  Howtel  the  canons  received  the 
place  called  Kilkilorok,  lying  near  Riacres  on  Bowmont  water,  and  a  meadow, 
called  Westmedum,  containing  7  acres,  while  from  his  widow,  Alice,  they 
secured  the  renunciation  of  her  dower  rights  in  Ulkelescroft,  the  sheepfold  in 
Warmelawe,  and  6  acres  and  4  roods  of  meadow  and  pasture  for  500  sheep,® 
which   had  been  given  them  presumably  by  her  late  husband,  though  the 
sheepfold  was  part  of  the  property  given  by  Roger  of  Howtel.     In  addition  to 
all  this  the  canons  possessed  a  pond  at  Twisilburn,  mentioned  in  several 
charters,  but  originally  given  them  by  W^alter,  son  of  Stephen,  and  Bernard 
of  Howtel,^  and  at  different  times  they  were  given  three  villeins  by  Alexander 
of  Howtel,  his  son  Roger,  and  Alan,  son  of  Robert  of  Howtel,  respectively. 1° 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  77.  '  Ibid.  fol.  76. 

'  Ihid.  fol.  77.     In  this  last  gift  it  is  probable  that  the  charter  means  to  imply  that  the  32  acres  of  land 

were  identical  with  the  32  acres  of  meadow  there  described  though  the  words  do  not  bear  that  construction. 

«  Ibid.  fol.  77.        s  Ibid.  fol.  76.      «  Ibid.  fol.  77.        '  Ibid.  fol.  76.       »  Ibid.  fol.  77.      »  Ibid.       "  Ibid. 



All  this  property  passed  to  the  crown  at  the  dissolution  of  the  religious 
houses  and  appears  as  such  in  1568.1  Added  to  this  the  crown 
acquired  other  lands  in  the  vill  from  the  Manners,  when  in  1547  the 
Northumberland  property  of  that  family  was  exchanged  for  other  lands. 2 
Some  of  these  crown  lands  were  leased  to  Lancelot  Shaftoe  and  Henry 
Bolesdon  in  1590,3  and  all  those  belonging  to  the  manor  of  Etal  were  granted 
for  twenty-one  years  in  1573  to  John  Selby  at  an  annual  rent  of  £2  5s.  8d., 
a  lease  regranted  to  John  Ware  in  1593  and  immediately  transferred  by  the 
latter  to  William  Selby  of  Berwick-upon-Tweed.*  By  special  inquisition 
in  1600  it  was  found,  that  the  queen's  lands  in  Howtel  consisted  of  the 
Bailiff's  Close  lying  at  the  foot  of  Kypie  Hill,  'Glendynnyes  Close'  intermixed 
with  the  land  of  other  owners,  3  riggs  of  land  called  Watson's  Crofts  lying 
to  the  west  of  the  Bailiff's  Close,  and  7  dwelling  houses,  all  but  one  wasted 
and  decayed  by  John  Burrell,  who  had  ploughed  up  the  site.  The  whole 
was  valued  at  46s.  8d.  yearly,  and  the  Selby  lease  had  been  now  again  sub-let 
to  Sir  John  Forster.^  A  similar  inquisition  of  two  years  later  described  the 
property  in  greater  detail,  but  the  record  is  so  damaged  as  to  add  little  or 
nothing  to  our  information,  save  that  Thomas  Carr,  Matthew  Forster  and 
John  Burrell  had  free  common  of  pasture  on  or  about  the  several  hills  of 
Kypie,  Howtel  Castle  Hill  and  Humbleton,  amounting  to  350  acres.  The 
rent  paid  by  Matthew  Forster  for  his  land  was  6s.  8d.  and  that  of  John 
Burrell  ;^io  6s.  Sd."  In  1604  these  lands  were  returned  at  iii  acres  rented 
to  a  single  tenant  at  £2  6s.  8d.  a  year.'  Nearly  a  hundred  years  later  a  lease 
of  these  lands  for  99  years  was  granted  by  the  crown, ^  but  to  whom  they 
were  ultimately  alienated  is  not  known. 

The  Tower. — Though  Howtel  Swyre  seems  to  have  been  a  favourite 
place  of  muster  for  border  troops  intent  on  a  foray  into  Scotland,^  we  do 

*  Ministers  Accounts,  7-8  Eliz. — Waterford  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  63.  Under  'Parcellam  nuper  prioratus 
de  Kirkhame'  there  is  included  'Hottell.'      P.R.O.  Augmentation  Office,  Receivers'  Accounts,  14  James  I. 

*  P.R.O.  Augmentation  Office,  Deeds  of  Purchase  and  Exchange,  box  F,  No.  23.  There  is  no  other 
allusion  to  the  ownership  of  land  in  Howtel  by  the  Manners,  but  in  1452  William  Leiay  gave  a  30  years 
lease  to  Robert  Manners,  of  Etal  of  all  his  land  in  Howtel  with  the  first  refusal  if  Lelay  decided  to  sell. 
Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 

'  P.R.O,  Augmentation  Office,  Particulars  of  Leases,  Northumberland,  File  3,  No.  31,  File  7,  No.  I. 

*  Waterford  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  126. 

*  P.R.O.  Exchequer  Special  Commissions,  Northumberland,  42  Eliz.  No.  1756. 
°  P.R.O.  Exchequer  Special  Commissions,  Northumberland,  44  Eliz.  No.  1761. 
'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1604,  p.  129. 

^Exchequer  Depositions  by  Commission,  11  Will.  HI.,  Easter  Term,  No.  28 — Dep.  Keeper's  Rep.  41. 
app.  i.  p.  177. 

°  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  iii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  1013,  1299  ;  vol.  iv.  pt.  i.  p.  112. 



not  hear  of  Howtel  tower  till  1541,  when  'a  greatt  parte  of  the  walls'  was 
standing,  though  it  had  been  '  rased  and  casten  downe '  by  the  king  of  Scots 
in  the  invasion  of  1497.  It  was  estimated  that  it  could  be  restored  for  £40.^ 
It  was  still  in  ruins  nine  years  later,-  and  in  need  of  repair  in  1580.^  In 
1584  it  was  'decaied  by  warres,'  but  the  surveyors  did  not  know  whether 

Fig.   8. — Howtel    Tower    from    the    Xorth-east. 

the  burden  of  its  repair  should  fall  on  John  Burrell  the  owner  or  on  the 
queen.  Still  as  it  would  only  cost  £50,  'beynge  a  verye  small  thinge,'  they 
recommended  its  restoration  as  '  a  verye  convenient  place  for  such  a  number, 
as  the  same  will  serve  to  defende  the  countrye  and  annoye  the  enemye,'  though 

•  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

»  Survev  of  the  Border,  1550 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  204. 

'  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol  i.  p.  32. 



/itn  large  quoins,  01 


the  surveyors  forgot  to  specify  the  number  that  they  had  in  mind.^     The 

remains  of  the  tower  still  stand,  enough  to  show  that  it  was  indeed  'a  verj-e 

small  thinge,'  probably  about  the  same  size  as  the  neighbouring  tower  of 

Hethpool.     It  measures  on  the  exterior  33  feet  from  east  to  west  and  31  feet 

3  inches  from  north  to  south.     The  walling  is  chiefly  of  irregular  courses 

of  rough  ill  shapen  stones,  the  angles  being  enclosed  with  large  quoins,  of 

which  a  few  are  to  be  seen  at  the  south-east  angle. 

The  walls  of  the  ground  floor  survive  in  a  mutilated 

condition,  and  the  south  wall  is  yet  standing  to  the 

height  of  three  storeys.     On  the  interior  the  basement 

measures  20  feet  3  inches  by  18  feet  and  is  enclosed 

by  walls  about  6  feet  6  inches  in  thickness.     It  was 

entered  by  a  door  in  the  south  wall,  the  exterior  stone 

dressings  of   which   are    non-existent,    but    the   flat 

pointed  rear  arch  remains.    It  was  lighted  on  the  west 

side  by  a  small  square-headed  window  with  a  pointed 

rear  arch.     It  is  improbable  that  the  basement  was 

vaulted,  although  there  are  faint  suggestions  on  the 

north    wall    of    springing    stones,   as   in    the    south 

wall  there  are  several  holes  to  receive  joists.      It  is 

uncertain  how  the  upper  floor  was  reached,  as  there 

is   no   evidence  of   a   staircase.     If  the  upper  floor 

had  joists,  it  would  be  easy  to  trim  them  for  a  staircase,  if  on  the  other  hand 

it  had  a  vaulted  roof,  then  the  access  to  the  upper  floor  must  have  been  by  an 

external  staircase.     Of  the  walls  of  the  first  floor  only  that  at  the  south  end 

is  standing,  in  it  is  a  small  square-headed  window  with  splayed  jambs  spanned 

by  a  flat  arch.     The  second  floor  was  much  larger  than  that  below,  the  walls 

being  set  in  almost  a  foot.     The  holes  for  the  joists  are  apparent  in  the  south 

wall,  where  also  is  a  small  window  with  square  dressings  to  both  the  interior 

and  the  exterior. 




.    9.— Plan  of  Howtel 

'  Report  01  Commissioners,  1584 — Border  Holds,  p.  72. 
Vol.   XI. 




Descent  of  the  Property. — Crookhouse^  is  a  little  farm  lying 
high  up  above  Bowmont  water.  To-day  it  ranks  as  a  township,  and  its 
separate  existence  was  recognized  from  the  thirteenth  century  onwards, 
though  then  included  in  the  vill  of  Howtel.  The  first  mention  of  it  is  in  a  charter 
dating  from  the  close  of  this  century,  probably  about  1 285-1 290,  whereby 
Alan  of  Howtel  gave  'the  hamlet  of  Crukes'  to  John  Middleton,  clerk,  his 
heirs  and  assigns,  to  be  held  of  the  donor  and  his  heirs,  paying  therefor  one 
penny  annually  at  Christmas.  The  situation  of  the  '  hamlet '  is  given  some- 
what vaguely  in  the  document  as  between  the  south  side  of  Schelderburne, 
the  mill  of  Lanton,  and  Bowmont  Water,  and  is  said  to  have  included 
Bolbenthalme,  the  water  meadow  as  far  as  Lanton  meadow,  and  the  whole 
field  called  Toftes.^  John  Middleton  had  died  by  1291,  when  his  son  Michael 
and  his  widow  Margery  were  sued  for  disseising  the  prior  of  Kirkham  of 
common  pasture  in  Howtel.^  Margery  Middleton  was  assessed  in  Howtel 
for  the  subsidy  of  1296  on  goods  valued  at  £g  15s.  od.,  the  only  larger 
assessment  being  that  of  Walter  of  Howtel.*  She  was  thus  resident 
at  Crookhouse,  and  was  still  living  in  1299,  when  Alan  of  Howtel's  widow, 
Alice,  sued  her  and  her  son  for  dower  in  a  messuage,  2  carucates  of  land 
and  20  acres  of  wood  in  Howtel, ^  which  probably  alludes  to  the  Crookhouse 
estate  alienated  to  the  Middletons  by  Alan  of  Howtel.  As  late  as  1310  she  was 
still  in  enjoyment  of  her  dower,  for  in  that  year  Michael  Middleton  leased 
two  parts  'of  all  the  tenements  del  Crukys  in  Holtal  together  with  the 
meadows  of  Holtal, '  for  10  years  from  the  following  Martinmas,  to  Thomas 
Baxter  of  Lanton.  The  lessee  was  to  pay  an  annual  rent  of  four  marks  of 
silver,  of  which  he  paid  four  years  in  advance,  and  was  responsible  for  the 
annual  rent  due  to  the  lord  of  the  mill  of  Lanton  for  multure. "^     He  had 

^  Earlier  le  Croukes,  i.e.  the  crooks  or  windings  of  the  Bowmont  Water.  The  Census  returns  are  : 
1801,14;  1811,12;  1821,  18:  1831,20;  1841,18;  1851,29;  1811.24;  1871,19;  1881,21;  1801,29; 
1901,  15  ;    191 1,  14.     The  township  comprises  480009  acres. 

^  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14.  The  charter  is  undated,  but  by  the  witnesses  must  have  been  between 
1285  and  1293  and  John  Middleton  died  before  1291. 

^  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  128,  m.  lydo — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol,  xxiii.  pp.  382-383.  The  jurj  found  that 
the  lands  were  in  Kilham. 

*  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  fol.  107. 

^  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  129,  m.  26do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvih.  p.  458. 

*  Litigation  had  begun  in  1289  over  the  mill  of  Lanton  which  had  been  mortgaged  by  the  Corbetts 
to  Robert  Mitford,  when  the  jury  found  that  the  mill  was  in  Howtel  not  in  Lanton.  {Assize  Roll.  Divers 
Counties,  17  Edw.  T. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  p.  284.)      This  would  imply  that  the  mill  was  in  Crookhouse, 


to  undertake  all  repairs  to  buildings  in  the  first  instance,  but  could  recover 
half  the  cost  thereof  from  the  lessor.  Further  he  was  to  guard  Michael 
Middleton's  wood  called  Charneclyve,  during  the  term  of  the  lease,  for  los. 
yearly,  and  was  to  be  responsible  for  all  damage  done  thereto  by  himself 
or  his  cattle.  If  the  lessee  were  to  be  prevented  from  cultivating  his  land 
by  war,  he  was  to  have  an  extension  of  his  lease  till  he  had  reaped  ten  crops 
from  the  land,  and  whereas  he  received  the  land  after  having  lain  fallow 
since  the  Whitsuntide  preceding  his  lease,  he  was  to  hand  it  over  at  the  close 
thereof  in  the  same  state. ^ 

Michael  Middleton  evidently  got  into  financial  difficulties,  for  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1315,  he  conveyed  his  two  parts  of  'the  manor  of  le  Crukys  together 
with  the  reversion  of  the  third  part,  being  his  mother's  dower,  to  Thomas 
Baxter. 2  This  was  evidently  only  by  way  of  mortgage,  for  just  a  year  later, 
his  mother  having  died  in  the  interval,  he  once  more  conveyed  '  the  manor  del 
Crukes,  that  is  all  the  tenements  which  he  has  in  Howtel  without  exception,' 
to  Thomas  Baxter,  who  by  deed  of  equal  date  undertook  to  return  the  property 
after  having  held  it  for  six  years,  if  on  or  before  Midsummer,  1316,  Michael 
or  his  heirs  paid  over  to  him  the  sum  of  £40  in  the  vill  of  Wark.^  The  £40 
was  evidently  not  paid,  as  when  Thomas  Baxter's  son  David  died  in  1323, 
he  was  seised  of  'Le  Croukes  in  Holthale,'  described  as  a  messuage  held 
of  Walter  of  Howtel  by  service  of  half  a  mark  for  multure  only.*  Thus 
the  property  was  still  held  of  the  Howtel  family,  for  Walter  was  the  son 
of  Alan  of  Howtel  who  had  originally  alienated  it  to  the  Middletons,^  and 
Walter  of  Howtel  evidently  held  it  from  the  Corbets,  to  whose  miU  at  Lanton 
the  multure  was  due.*'  When  about  1330  Roger  Corbet  released  to  WiUiam 
Strother  and  his  wife  Joan  aU  right  he  had  to  holdings,  services,  &c.,  in 
'Croukes,"'  it  must  have  been  this  multure  due  of  half  a  mark  which  was 
thus  conveyed.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that,  when  trouble  arose  over 
the  forfeiture  of  the  Corbets  and  the  crown  had  regranted  their  alienated 

as  that  was  the  only  part  of  Howtel  township  that  touched  Lanton,  but  the  verdict  was  obviously  wrong  and 
may  have  meant  that  some  of  the  service  due  to  the  mill  was  in  Crookliouse.  The  case  reappeared  in  1291, 
when  the  property  in  dispute  was  described  as  20  marks  of  rent  issuing  from  one  messuage,  one  mill  and 
2  bovatcs  of  land  in  Howtel  and  Lanton  {Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  127,  m.  59 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii. 
PP-  349-354).  and  was  again  before  the  courts  in  1293,  when  for  the  first  time  John  Middleton  and  his  mother 
Margery  were  included  as  defendants.  These  last  pleaded  that  though  they  held  some  of  the  lands  from 
which  the  rent  came,  they  were  not  concerned  in  the  case  {Assi:e  Roll,  21  Edw.  L — Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xviii.  pp.  230-232),  which  confirms  the  suggestion  that  some  of  tlic  lands  were  in  Howtel  and 
they  probably  comprised  the  whole  of  Crookhouse. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  i^.  '-  Ibid. 

'  Ibid.  *  Cat.  of  Iiuj.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  289. 

'  See  page  192.  ^  See  page  210  11.  o.  '  Laiiig  Charters,  p.  10. 


estates  to  the  Strothers  in  1358, ^  David  Baxter  refused  to  attorn  to  Henry 
Strother  for  his  holdings,  including  one  messuage  and  200  acres  of  land 
called  '  le  Croukes '  by  service  of  half  a  mark  for  licence  to  grind  corn  growing 
on  the  land  whenever  he  liked,  and  by  service  of  3s.  for  castle  ward  and  2od. 
for  cornage.  It  was  ultimately  decided  in  1364  that  this  property  was  held 
of  the  manor  of  Lanton,  and  David  was  ordered  to  attorn.-  There  is  no 
mention  of  the  mesne  lord  of  Howtel,  which  may  be  accounted  for  by  the 
supposition  that,  while  the  property  was  in  the  hands  of  the  crown,  it  was 
found  that  the  alienation  of  Alan  of  Howtel  to  the  Middletons,  the  date 
of  which  we  have  seen  was  uncertain,  took  place  after  the  passing  of  the 
statute  of  Westminster  HI.^ 

When  in  1369  the  widow  of  David  Baxter,  grandson  of  the  last  named 
David,  received  her  dower,  the  place  called  '  le  Croukhouse  and  le  Croukfeld ' 
was  said  to  contain  412  acres  of  land  and  meadow  and  a  wood  of  30  acres 
called  'Scharncliffe,'*  the  last  named  to  be  identified  with  'Charnclyve' 
wood  excepted  from  the  lease  granted  by  Michael  Middleton  in  1310.  When 
three  years  later  there  was  litigation  between  this  lady  and  her  mother-in- 
law  over  their  respective  dower  rights,  the  property  was  described  as  a 
messuage,  4  plough  lands,  20  acres  of  meadow  and  40  acres  of  wood  in  '  Croke- 
houses.'^  It  had  been  Henry  Lilburn  who  had  granted  the  dower  to  David 
Baxter's  widow,  ^  so  he  was  presumably  the  heir  to,  or  the  recent  purchaser 
of,  the  property  in  1369.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  hear  no  more  of  Crookhouse 
till  1542,  when  Thomas  Manners,  first  earl  of  Rutland,  alluded  in  his  will 
to  his  lands  there, ^  and  as  the  deeds  of  the  place  are  to  be  found  among  the 
Bel  voir  muniments,  this  implies  that  the  property  of  the  Baxters  had 
passed  to  the  Manners.  It  was  sold  by  Henry,  earl  of  Rutland,  in  1562  to 
the  occupier  for  the  time  being,  one  Ralph  Swinhoe  of  Cornhill,  the  rental 
value  being  then  given  at  £4  yearly,^  but  this  can  only  refer  to  a  portion  of 
the  estate,  though  we  find  the  whole  as  part  of  the  property  of  James  Swinhoe 
of  Chatton,  who  as  a  royalist  compounded  for  delinquency  for  '  a  messuage 
and  lands  called  Crookehouses,  parish  of  Kirknewton,'  in  1649,  the  yearly 

'  See  under  Lanton. 

'  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  413,  m.  73 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxv.  pp.  135-142. 

=  18  Edw.  I.  Stat.  i.  clause  i  (1290).     The  clause  Qwia  Swp^oj-es  provided  that  in  the  event  of  a  sale  of  land 
the  new  owner  should  hold  of  the  seller's  lord  direct  and  not  of  the  seller. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  =  p  k.O.  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  441,  m.  i23do. 

«  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  '  North  Country  IVills,  vol.  i.  p.  187. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14. 


value  before  the  war  being  £30.^  By  1663  Gilbert  Swinhoe  had  succeeded 
to  the  property,  the  rental  of  which  was  then  estimated  at  £40.^  From  the 
Swinhoes  it  passed  to  the  Strothers,  who  had  some  claim  there  as  early  as 
1649,  when  among  the  particulars  of  the  estate  of  William  Strother  of  Kirk- 
newton  there  was  included  '  the  Crooke-house,  now  lying  lea.'  No  estimated 
value  is  given, ^  and  perhaps  this  only  had  reference  to  the  rent  due  to 
Lanton  mill,  which  the  Strothers  had  held  in  the  fourteenth  centur}'.  In 
1694,  however,  the  'farm  of  Crookhouses'  was  the  property  of  William 
Strother  of  Grindon-Rigg,  son  and  heir  of  the  last  named  William,  but  was 
mortgaged  to  Isabel  Bigg,  widow  of  William  Bigg,  late  of  Newcastle-upon- 
Tyne,  for  £500.*  On  his  marriage  with  Margaret  Delaval  in  1676,  William 
Strother  had  settled  the  estate  with  tithes  of  corn,  wool  and  lamb,  and  this 
passed  in  due  course,  as  shown  under  Kirknewton,  to  his  daughter,  Mary,^ 
who  in  August,  1716,  joined  with  her  husband,  Walter  Ker,  in  selling  it  to 
Robert  Blake  of  Twizel  for  £1,050.^  It  remained  in  this  family  down  to  the 
death  in  i860  of  Sir  Francis  Blake,  third  baronet,'  when  it  passed  under  his 
will  to  his  son,  Francis  Blake,  who  died  the  following  year,  leaving  the 
property  to  his  son,  Francis  Douglas  Blake.  In  1877  the  latter  sold  Crook- 
house,  together  with  an  adjacent  piece  of  land  known  as  Milfield  Ninths, 
to  the  late  earl  of  Durham,  who  bequeathed  it  to  the  present  owner,  the 
Hon.  F.  W.  Lambton." 

'  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  353. 

=  Kate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278.  According  to  the  pedigree  of  Swinhoe  of  Goswick 
in  Kaine.  North  Durham,  p.  184,  Ralph  Swinhoe  was  under  age  in  1560,  and  James  Swinhoe  of  Chatton 
was  the  grandson  of  his  younger  brother.  Gilbert  Swinhoe  of  Crookhousc  is  given  as  the  elder  brother 
of  James  Swinhoe  of  Chatton,  and  is  taken  by  Kaine  to  be  the  author  of  the  "Tragedy  of  Irene'  printed 
in  1658. 

»  Royalist  Compositions,  p.  347.  *  Laing  Charters,  p.  680. 

*  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  bundle  372,  No.  55.  *  Lambert  MS. 

'  For  pedigree  of  Blake  of  Twisell  see  Raine,  North  Durham,  p.  316.  •  Crookhouse  Deeds. 



Coupland^  is  a  long  narrow  township  touching  the  boundary  of 
Kirknewton  on  the  north  and  to  the  south  resting  on  the  edge  of  the  Clieviot 
hills.  It  includes  the  little  village  of  Coupland  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Glen  and  across  the  stream  the  hamlet  now  known  as  Yeavering,  which 
lies  outside  the  township  of  that  name.^ 

Descent  of  the  Manor. — Coupland  formed  part  of  the  barony  of  the 
great  Robert  Muschamp,  and  was  held  of  him  together  with  Akeld  and 
Yeavering  by  William  of  Akeld  for  one  knight's  fee  of  ancient  enfeoffment.^ 
To  William,  seemingly,  succeeded  a  certain  Sampson  of  Coupland,  who  leased 
20  acres  of  arable  land  in  the  township,  together  with  another  parcel  of 
land  towards  the  south  called  Hilles,  with  a  toft  and  croft  and  two  houses, 
occupied  by  Daniel,  the  shepherd,  and  Addec,  to  the  canons  of  Kirkham  for 
a  period  of  twelve  years. ^  This  Sampson  was  the  founder  of  the  Coupland 
family  of  later  fame,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  of  the  same  name,  who 
confirmed  the  lease. ^  This  last  must  have  died  before  1274,  as  in  that 
year  his  son,  David,  sued  one  Robert  of  Coupland  for  two  messuages  and 
half  a  carucate  of  land  in  the  township,  on  the  ground  that  his  father  had 
been  insane  when  he  alienated  it  to  Robert's  father,  another  Sampson  of 
Coupland.  So  far  as  one  messuage  and  six  acres  were  concerned,  David 
failed  to  substantiate  his  case,  as  it  was  proved  that  his  father  had  con- 
veyed them  to  a  certain  Emma,  daughter  of  Reginald,  who  in  turn  had  sold 
them  to  Robert's  father,  but  the  jury  found  for  him  with  regard  to  the 
rest  of  the  property.^  Three  years  later  however  he  was  not  so  successful, 
when  Robert's  son,  John,  claimed  certain  lands  in  Coupland  of  which  his 
father  had  died  seised  and  which  David  Coupland  then  held.''  These 
were  by  no  means  the  only  occasions  when  this  lord  of  Coupland  found 

'  Earlier  Coupland,  Coupaund,  Copeland.  An  interesting  word  derived  from  Old  West  Scandinavian 
AaH/)a-/and=purchased  land  opposed  to  ol/iah-jbrt/i=a.n  allodial  estate.  O.N.  kaup,  bargain=O.E.  ceap 
or  cheap.      Found  also  in  Copeland  in  Auckland. 

-  The  Census  returns  are  :  1801,70;  1811,101;  1821,98;  1831,100;  1841,109;  1851,160;  1861,109; 
1871,89;    1881,114;    1891,94;    1901,111;    1911,113.     The  township  comprises  I542-462  acres. 

'  Tesla  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  210-211. 

*  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  81.  ^  Ibid. 

'  P.R  O.  Dc  Banco  lioll,  Xo.  5,  ra.  51  ;  No.  9,  m.  i6do  ;  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  1-6  Edw.  I. — 
Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xvi.  pp.  155-156,  192  ;   vol.  xx.  pp.  8-9. 

'  Northumberland  Assise  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc.)   p.  233. 


himself  involved  in  law  suits :  indeed  litigation  occupied  no  small  portion 
of  his  time.  He  had  trouble  over  the  mill,  a  portion  of  which  he  had 
inherited  from  his  father,  and  had  to  defend  his  rights  and  those  of  his 
mother  Alice  therein  against  Richard  Champion  and  Margery  his  wife.^ 
Further  he  challenged  the  claims  of  his  neighbours  to  depasture  their  cattle 
on  three  acres  which  he  had  brought  into  cultivation  and  enclosed,  on 
the  ground  that  his  father  had  had  this  land  under  cultivation.  He  admitted 
that  his  father  in  his  later  years,  when  he  was  out  of  his  mind,  had  allowed  it 
to  lie  fallow,  but  he  asserted  that  the  depasturing  of  cattle  had  only  been 
allowed  during  this  period.  The  jury  found  however  that  the  right  of  pasture 
dated  from  before  this  time  and  that  no  claims  for  damages  lay  against  the 
defendants  for  having  turned  their  cattle  into  the  growing  corn.^  In  1285  David 
Coupland  bought  some  land  in  the  township  from  Nicholas  of  Coupland,^  and 
later  rented  another  half  carucate  from  him,  which  was  also  a  subject  of 
litigation  in  1293,  when  Nicholas  had  to  appeal  to  the  courts  to  obtain  the  rent 
due  to  him.*  As  early  as  1285,  too,  the  lord  of  Coupland  was  brought  into 
contact  with  his  relative,  Thomas  Baxter  of  Lanton,  who  held  a  lease  of 
the  lands  bought  from  Nicholas  Coupland,  and  had  to  assert  his  rights  when 
this  property  was  sold  as  the  purchaser  turned  him  out.^  Despite  this 
inauspicious  beginning,  the  relations  between  the  two  men  became  very 
close.  By  1295  Thomas  Baxter  held  part  of  the  demesne  of  Coupland, 
and  was  then  granted  free  ingress  and  egress  to  and  from  the  fields  of  Coupland 
for  his  stock  in  Lanton  by  David  Coupland.^  About  this  same  time  the 
latter,  now  described  as  a  knight,  conveyed  to  Thomas  Baxter  of  Lanton, 
whom  he  called  his  kinsman,  all  his  demesne  lands  without  exception  both 
in  meadow  and  arable  in  the  territory  of  Coupland,  being  a  property 
described  as  '  le  Ploweland '  in  the  endorsement  of  the  deed.  The  boundary 
of  this  ran  from  the  parcel  of  land  called  '  Westirhollawys '  and  through 
the  midst  thereof  westwards  to  the  main  road  from  Lanton  to  Berwick, 
then  following  this  road  northwards  to  the  brook  called  'Toddelaubum,' 
and  so  following  the  southern  side  of  this  brook  eastwards  to  a  certain  plot 
of   the   demesne   called   'Starbrighalwe.'     From   here   the   line  ran   south- 

'  Norlhumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc),  pp.  229,  234.  '  Ibid.  pp.  235-236. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  59,  m.  84 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  68. 

'  Assize  Roll.  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  p.  611. 

^  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  59.  m.  84 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .vxvii.  p.  68. 

*  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14.     C/.  Belvoir  Papers,  vol.  iv.  p.  73. 


wards  to  the  head  of  'Merlanflat'  in  Lanton,  and  so  southwards  along  the 
borders  of  Lanton  to  the  south  part  of  'Westirhol'  aforesaid.     Further, 
leave  was  granted  to  build  a  house  on  the  property  for  the  purposes  of  a  sheep 
or    ox    fold,    and   to   enclose   it  with  a  sufficient  close,  rendering   therefore 
annuallj'  id.  at  Christmas  to  the  chief  lord  of  the  fee,  of  whom  the  whole 
property  was  held.^     Despite  this  alienation  of  the  demesne,  David  Coup- 
land  never  ceased  to  be  lord  of  the  vill.     He  appears  as  such  in  the  Subsidy 
Roll  of  1296,  when  he  was  assessed  on  £8  i6s.  8d.,  and  his  son  Simon  also  had 
an  establishment  there,  his  goods  being  valued  at  £1  los.  od.^     The  latter 
had  probably  succeeded  his  father  when  in  1300  he  sued  his  brother  John  for 
killing  one  of  his  horses  worth  £20,^  an  incident  probably  arising  out  of 
quarrels  as  to  lands  and  the  making  of  a  bank  in  Coupland,  which  produced 
litigation  beginning  in  1301  and  stiU  continuing  in  1308.'*     The  new  lord  was 
also  sued  in  1301  by  Thomas  Baxter  for  disseising  him  of  certain  lands  in 
Coupland,^  doubtless  another  quarrel  arising  out  of  the  conveyance  of  the 
demesne  to  the  latter.     However,  in  1312  Thomas  Baxter's  son  David  acted 
as  defendant  in  a  fine,  whereby  the  manor  of  Coupland  '  which  he  had  of 
the  gift  of  Simon,  son  of  David  Coupland,'  excepting  12  tofts,   i  mill,  4 
carucates  of  land  and  20  acres  of  pasture,  was  settled  on  the  latter  for  life, 
to  be  held  of  David  Baxter  and  his  heirs,  rendering  therefor  annually  a  rose 
at  Midsummer,  and  to  the  chief  lord  of  the  fee  all  the  other  services  due 
therefrom  on  behalf  of  David.    At  Simon  Coupland's  death  the  property  was 
to  pass  to  Alice,  daughter  of  Simon,  son  of  Margaret  of  Lanton,  and  Joan, 
daughter  of  the  said  Alice  and  the  heirs  of  the  latters'  body,  and  failing 
such  heirs,  it  was  to  pass  to  David  and  his  heirs  or  the  other  heirs  of  Joan." 
Simon  Coupland  had  an  illegitimate  daughter,  Joan,  wife  of  Walter  Mautalent, 
who  was  sued  in  1328  by  John  Lilburn  and  Constance  his  wife  for  a  messuage 
and  two  oxgangs  in  Coupland,  which  were  claimed  as  the  right  of  Constance.' 
Ten  years  later  Mautalent  was  dead,  and  his  widow  had  to  meet  the  claims 
of  her  cousin  John  Coupland,  who   forcibly  ejected  her  from  2  messuages 

1  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14.     The  witnesses  to  this  and  the  last  named  deed  are  many  of  them  identical. 

-  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  102. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  131,  m.  62do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  518. 

*  Assize  Rolls,  28-31  Edw.  I.,  2  Ed.  II. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  pp.  127,  113,  317. 

'  Assize  Roll,  28-31  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  p.  126. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  5  Edw.  II.  Nos.  18,  21 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xii.  pp.  26-27,  30-3'  :   Belvoir  Deeds, 
drawer  14. 

'  P.R.O.  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  274,  m.  176. 

















Arms  :  Silver  on  a  cross  sable  a  molet  silver.  ( Jenyn's  roll,  time 
of  Edward  III.,  Harl.  MS.  6,589  ;  roll  circa  A.D.  1392-97,  ed.  by 
Thomas  Willement  A.D.  1834).  The  armorial  seal  of  Sir  John 
Coupland  (plate  facing  p.  152,  No.  5)  appended  to  a  deed  dated 
20th  March,  10  Edw.  III.  (A.D.  1335-6)  has  the  cross  charged  with 
a  lion  rampant  within  a  border  engrailed  in  a  voided  lozenge.  These 
are  the  arms  of  Grey'  and  point  to  some  connection,  feudal  or 
other,  with  that  family.  His  seals  of  A.D.  1347  and  A.D.  1357  (plate 
facing  p.  152,  Nos.  4,  6)  have  the  cross  charged  with  a  molet,  as  in  the 
rolls.  The  crest  is  a  ram's  head  which  again  appears  to  point  to  a 
Grey  connection.'  His  widow  Joan,  to  a  deed  dated  20  October,  40 
Edw.  III.  (A.D.  1366),  uses  an  armorial  seal,  a  cross  charged  with  a 
molet  (Coupland)  impaling  on  a  bend  three  spread  eagles  (Strother) 
(plate  facing  p.  152,  No.  2).  To  an  earlier  deed  dated  on  the  feast  of 
the  Epiphany  37  Edw.  III.  (6th  January,  1363-4)  she  uses  a  similar 
seal  with  the  bend  from  the  sinister,  probably  a  mistake  of  the 
engraver  corrected  in  the  later  seal  (plate  facing  p.  152,  No.  i). 
To  a  deed  dated  6th  February  44  Edw.  III.  (A.D.  1369-70)  she  uses 
quite  a  different  armorial  seal  with  a  fleur-de-lys  reversed  issuing 
out  0/  a  reversed  leopard's  head  (plate  facing  p.  152,  No.  3). 

Sampson  Coupland  (a)  = 

AUce  (c) Sampson  Coupland  (a). 

David  Coupland,  succeeded  == 
father  by  1274  (b). 

Simon  ,Coupland  {d),  probably  lord  = 
of  Coupland,  in  1301  (e)  ;  living 
1323  {'')■ 

Walter  Maut- 
alent,  died 
before  1338 



Joan,  seised  of  lands 
in  Coupland,  1328 
(A)  ;  declared  a 
bastard  daughter 
of  Simon  Coup- 
land,  1340  {i). 

John  Coupland  (e)  = 

Agnes  (/)  =  Walter  of  Howtel 
{/)  ;  died  before 

1317  te)- 

Joan,   daughter   of  =  John   Coupland,    claimed     lands    in 
AUce,     daughter  Coupland   as     Simon     Coupland's 

of  Simon,  son  of  heir   in  1338  (i)  ;    paid  feudal  aid 

Margaret  of  Lan-  for  three  parts  of   Coupland  circa 

ton    {p)  ;        died  135°   (>»)  ;  slain   30th   December, 

1375  (?)■  1363  («)• 

Thomas  of  Howtel, 
1338  (/). 

died  s.p.  before 

=  Roger  of  Howtel,  claimed  brother  s  inheritance, 

I        1338  (/). 

Thomas  of  Howtel,  defendant  in  a  fine  of  1365,  whereby  Joan  Coupland  secured  her  property  (/). 

(a)  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  81. 

(b)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  5,  m.  51 — Duke's  Tran- 

scripts, vol.  xxvi.  pp.  155-156. 

(c)  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls  (Surtees  Soc), 

p.  229. 

(d)  Pedes   Finium,  5  Edw.  II.  No.  18 — Duke's 

Transcripts,  vol.  xii.  pp.  26-27. 

(e)  Assiie  Roll,  28-31   Edw.  I. — Duke's  Tran- 

scripts, vol.  xix.  p.  127. 

(f)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  313,  m.  302do. 
\g)  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14. 
(h)  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  \\.  p.  289. 
(t)   Reg.   Palat.  Dunelm.,  vol.  iii.  pp.   274-275 ; 

Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  12  Edw.  IlL; 

'  See  Arch.  Aeliana,  3rd  ser.  vol.  viii.  p.  79,  and  Ibid,  plate  13. 
Vol.  XI. 

County  Placita,  25  Edw.  III.  Northumber- 
land— Duke's       Transcripts,      vol.      xx. 
PP-  374-37.5  ;    vol.  xxii.  pp.  69-70,  73. 

(A)  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  274,  m.  176. 

{/)    Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276. 

(m)  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  65. 

(«)  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  447,  m.  25do — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  426-430. 

(0)  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  973. 

{p)  See  page  218. 

Iq)  Rot.  Fin.  49  Edw.  III.  m.  7 — Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276. 



and  48  acres  of  land  in  the  township  on  the  ground  that  he  was  heir  to  his 
late  uncle,  Simon  Coupland,  since  Joan  was  a  bastard.  He  already  had  a 
small  holding  of  his  own  consisting  of  a  messuage  and  24  acres  of  land  in  the 
township,  which  he  inherited  from  his  father.  Joan  denied  her  illegitimacy, 
but  the  court  christian,  to  which  the  matter  was  referred,  found  that  she  was 
a  bastard.^  When  in  1339  she  failed  in  a  claim  to  lands  in  Howtel  on  the 
same  grounds  of  bastardy,  she  was  described  as  Joan  Coupland.-  The 
other  Joan,  on  whom  the  manor  had  been  settled,  must  have  married  John 
Coupland  before  or  soon  after  1346,  for  according  to  the  records  of  the  Feudal 
Aid  of  that  year  he  paid  30s.  for  three  parts  of  a  Knight's  fee  as  in  three 
parts  of  the  vills  of  Akeld,  Yeavering  and  Coupland.^  It  does  not  seem 
possible  for  him  to  have  acquired  the  three  parts  save  through  Joan, 
daughter  of  Alice,  to  whom  it  was  secured,  and  the  fact  that  his  wife  was 
named  Joan  strengthens  the  supposition.''  It  is  fairly  obvious  that  this 
wife  was  an  heiress,  for  in  most  of  his  transactions  with  regard  to  pro^oerty 
she  was  associated  with  him,  and  she  enjoyed  that  property  in  her  own  right 
after  his  death. 

Three  Parts  of  the  Manor. — John  Coupland  was  a  man  of  considerable 
mark  in  his  day.  His  public  services  as  early  as  1339  were  such  as  to  secure 
him  a  royal  grant  of  lands  in  Roxburghshire  and  an  annuity  of  £20,^  and  from 
this  time  down  to  his  death  in  1363  he  was  constantly  employed  in  the  Scottish 
wars  and  in  border  administration.  In  1344  he  was  a  king's  yeoman,^  and  in 
1346  he  leapt  into  fame  as  the  fortunate  squire  who  captured  David  of 
Scotland  at  the  battle  of  Neville's  Cross.  According  to  Froissart  he  refused 
to  surrender  his  prisoner  to  anyone  save  the  king,   and  having  placed  him  in 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  12  Edw.  III.  ;  County  Placita,  25  Edw.  III.,  Northumberland — Duke's 
Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  374-375  ;   vol.  xxii.  pp.  69-70,  73.     Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm,  vol.  iii.  pp.  339-340. 

•  Reg.  Palat.  Dunelm.  vol.  iii.  pp.  274-275.  '  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  65. 

•  It  is  universally  stated  that  Joan  wife  of  John  Coupland  was  a  Strother,  according  to  Hodgson,  pt. 
ii.  vol.  i.  p.  254,  daughter  of  Alan  Strother,  and  according  to  The  Strother  Family,  p.  3,  daughter  of  William 
Strother  of  Kirknewton  and  'married  ist,  William  second  son  of  William  Sire  de  Coucy  {C/.  Genealogist,  n.s. 
vol.  iv.  p.  90),  2nd,  the  famous  John  de  Coupland.'  No  reference  other  than  the  one  above  is  given,  nor 
can  I  find  any  authority  whatsoever  for  the  statements.  The  statement  in  the  Genealogist  refers  to  Inq.  p.m. 
21  Ric.  II.  This  is  now  P.R.O.  Chancery  Miscellaneous  Inquisitions,  file  261,  No.  75,  where  there  is 
mention  of  John  and  Joan  Coupland  as  grantees  of  certain  lands  formerly  held  by  William  de  Coucy.  The 
name  Strother  is  not  mentioned,  nor  is  William  de  Coucy 's  widow,  and  he  had  no  heir  of  his  body. 
Joan's  seal  suggests  Strother  ancestry  (see  p.  217)  and  so  her  mother  AUce  or  her  grandfather  Simon  or 
her  grandmother  Margaret  of  Lanton  may  have  been  a  Strother.  Joan,  widow  of  John  Coupland,  was 
in  an  entail  after  the  male  heirs  of  Sir  Thomas  Grey  of  Heton.  (P.R.O.  Durham  Cursitor  Records, 
vol.  3/2,  f.  Ss*"".)  This  suggests  a  Grey  relationship,  which  is  strengthened  by  the  crest  born  by  Sir  John 
Coupland  (see  p.  217)  The  arms  and  crest  tend  to  remove  the  possibility,  which  at  first  sight  seems  hkely, 
that  Joan,  bastard  daughter  of  Simon  Coupland,  and  Joan,  wife  of  John  Coupland  were  the  same  person. 

'  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  558.  °  Col.  of  Close  Rolls,  1343-1346,  p.  354. 


safe  custody,  went  over  to  the  English  army  before  Calais  to  bargain  for 
an  annuity  of  £500.^  Though  the  picturesque  details  given  by  the  French 
chronicler  cannot  be  accepted,  it  is  obvious  that  the  king  had  some  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  possession  of  the  prisoner.  Urgent  orders  were  issued 
immediately  after  the  battle,  commanding  John  Coupland,  among  others,  to 
bring  his  prisoners  to  London,-  and  the  ransoming  of  any  of  the  captives,  as 
was  the  custom  of  the  age,  was  categorically  forbidden.^  Further,  an  English 
chronicler  substantiates  Froissart's  statement  that  David  was  carried  off 
to  some  castle  and  there  securely  held,  and  identifies  the  fortress  as 
Bamburgh,*  and,  whether  as  the  result  of  bargaining  or  not,  John  Coupland 
was  appointed  to  the  estate  of  a  knight  banneret,  with  an  annuity  of  £500 
'for  his  stout  bearing  in  the  glorious  victory  over  the  Scots  at  Durham, 
where  he  took  prisoner  David  Bruce,  who  had  caused  himself  to  be  named 
king  of  Scotland.'  Further  he  was  granted  another  annuity  of  £100  'for 
his  stay  with  the  king  with  twenty  men-at-arms.'^  Henceforth  he  was 
constantly  in  the  king's  service.  In  June  1347  he  was  on  a  mission  over- 
seas.^ From  1347  to  his  death,  with  certain  intervals  when  he  was  relieved 
of  his  command,  he  was  constable  of  Roxburgh  and  sheriff  of  Roxburgh- 
shire,'^  and  from  1357  to  1362  he  had  custody  of  Berwick,  though  he  was 
removed  from  this  a  few  weeks  before  his  death. ^  On  more  than  one 
occasion  he  served  as  a  conservator  of  truces  and  on  other  border  commis- 
sions, he  was  escheator  in  the  county  of  Northumberland  in  1354  and 
1356,'^  and  sheriff  in  1350,  1351,  1353,  1354  and  1356.1"  It  fell  to  his  lot, 
in  this  last  capacity,  to  take  charge  once  more  of  King  David,  who  was  being 

1  Froissart  (ed.  Kervyn  de  Lettenhove,  Bruxelles,  1868),  vol.  v.  pp.  128,  134  (second  version),  pp.  137-144 
(fourtli  version.) 

2  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  676.  '  Ibid.  pp.  675-681 ;  Foedera,  vol.  iii.  pp.  95,  98. 

«  Knighton,  vol.  ii.  p.  44.  It  is  also  noticeable  that  Froissart  in  his  account  of  the  capture  speaks  of 
Coupland  as  in  command  of  20  men  (Froissart,  vol.  v.  p.  128),  a  number  confirmed  by  an  official  document. 
Col.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1345-1348,  p.  226. 

'  Foedera,  vol.  iii.  p.  102  ;  Cal.  oj Patent  Rolls,  1345-1348,  p.  226.  Later  certain  property  in  the  counties 
of  Westmorland,  Cumberland  and  Lancaster  was  granted  to  him  in  part  redemption  of  this  annuity.  Ibid. 
p.  370.     Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1354-1358,  p.  223. 

«  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties.  18-22  Edw.  II. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .xx.  pp.  393-394- 

'  Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  v.  p.  494  ;  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  pp.  692,  693,  714,  718,  740.  748,  756,  761,  777,  781, 
858,  861,  880.  On  one  occasion  Coupland  was  said  to  have  been  long  absent  from  Roxburgh  owing  to  his 
duties  as  sheriff  of  Northumberland.     Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1349-1354.  PP-  539-54°- 

'  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  pp.  801,  807,  841,  847,  851,  864.  As  early  as  1345  he  had  been  commissioned  to 
supervise  the  repair  of  two  mills  at  Berwick.     Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  664. 

»  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1354-135S.  PP-  52.  358- 
"  P.R.O.  Lists  and  Indexes,  vol.  Ix.  p.  97;   Lansdowne  MS.  326,  fols.  i62do,  128,  116,  i36do. 

220       "  PARISH    OF    KIRKNEWTON. 

allowed  to  visit  Scotland  to  negotiate  a  peace,  in  1351,  1352  and  1353,^ 
but  in  1356  peremptory  orders  were  issued  to  the  justices  in  Northumber- 
land to  remove  him  from  this  office  and  substitute  another.^  These  sudden 
dismissals,  which  recur  at  frequent  intervals  throughout  his  career,  suggest 
that  he  was  as  much  a  borderer  as  an  official,  but  he  was  never  disgraced. 
Possibly  he  was  in  command  of  Wark  in  1359,  when  he  made  a  nuncupative 
will  there,  being  about  to  set  out  to  some  far  distant  destination  at  the 
command  of  the  king  and  not  knowing  when  he  would  return  nor  what 
should  befall  him  before  he  did  so.^  That  he  did  so  return  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  he  met  a  violent  death  in  1363  in  his  own  county  of  North- 
umberland, and  so  well  known  was  he  that  a  chronicler  in  far  off  Leicester- 
shire thought  it  worth  while  to  record  his  death,  and  to  write  his  epitaph — 
'a  valiant  man  of  the  north,  an  esquire  skilful  and  brave.'*  He  was  slain 
seemingly  on  Bolton  Moor  on  December  20th,  1363,^  together  with  Nicholas 
Bagot  of  Newcastle  and  William  Kendal,*^  and  was  probably  trying 
to  suppress  some  border  disturbance  in  his  capacity  as  one  of  the  wardens 
of  the  march  of  Scotland,  for  we  are  told  that  he  met  his  death  'on  the 
king's  service.'^  His  murderers  were  not  easily  caught.  One  of  them 
is  mentioned  in  a  grant  to  his  widow  'of  all  the  lands  late  of  John  Clifford, 
the  king's  enemy,  forfeited  by  him  for  riding  at  war  within  the  realm, 
slaying  the  said  John  Coupland  while  in  the  king's  service,  and  adhering 
to  the  Scots.'^  In  1372  one  Thomas  Brewster  was  indicted  for  having  slain 
John  Coupland  and  his  two  companions  and  stolen  jewels  to  the  value  of 
200  marks.  Hitherto  he  had  eluded  capture,  and  now  he  put  in  a  plea  that 
he  was  not  the  Thomas  Brewster  who  had  done  the  deed.  While  the  case 
was  pending,  he  escaped  from  the  Marshalsea  prison,  but  was  recaptured, 

'  Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  pp.  759-760;    Foedera  (second  edition),  vol.  v.  pp.  727,  737,  756,  802,  806. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1354-1358,  p.  326.  ^  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  pp.  29-31. 

*  'Scutifer  elegans  et  audax.'     Knighton,  vol.  ii.  pp.  116-117. 

s  This  date.  Wednesday,  the  vigil  of  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  37  Edw.  III.  is  given  in  a  case  of  1372, 
Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  447,  m.  25do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  426-430.  In  another  case  of  1380 
the  date  is  given  as  Wednesday  the  vigil  of  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle  36  Edw.  III.,  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  477, 
m.  i9do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxvi.  p.  43.  This  would  make  it  1362,  and  though  this  is  the  year  given 
by  Knighton,  it  is  less  hkely  to  be  accurate,  as  the  vigil  of  St.  Thomas  was  that  year  a  Tuesday  not  a 
Wednesday.  Also  the  commission  to  inquire  into  his  murder  is  dated  January,  1364.  Cal.  oj  Patent  Rolls, 
1361-1364,  p.  454. 

»  Coram.  Rege  Roll,  No.  477,  m.  2jdo — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxv.  pp.  426-430;  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls, 
1361-1364,  p.  453. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1361-1364,  p.  454  ;  1364-1367,  pp.  200,  217.  He  had  been  appointed  custodian 
of  the  march  pro  tempore  12th  November,  1359.     Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  843. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1304-1367,  pp.  200,  217. 


though  his  ultimate  fate  is  not  disclosed. ^  Yet  another  of  those  concerned 
in  the  murder  was  Henry  of  Lucker,  who  was  tried  and  outlawed  for  his 
complicity  therein. ^ 

John  Coupland's  widow  survived  him  for  ten  years, ^  and  in  1365  she 
levied  a  fine  to  put  beyond  question  her  right  not  only  to  her  own  inheritance, 
but  to  the  various  lands  in  Northumberland  acquired  by  her  husband  and 
herself.*  In  1372  she  sold  the  manor  of  Coupland  together  with  her  other 
Northumbrian  property  to  Sir  Richard  Arundel,^  from  whose  family  it 
passed  with  Akeld  to  the  Greys.  Sir  Ralph  Grey  held  three  parts  of  the  vill 
when  the  feudal  aid  of  1428  was  collected,^  and  when  he  died  in  1443  this 
was  said  to  be  held  of  the  king  as  of  the  manor  of  Wooler  by  socage,  and 
worth  yearly  20s.''  The  border  survey  of  1541  found  the  township  contained 
ten  husbandlands  and  'was  of  th'inherytaunce  of  .  .  .  Graye  of  Chyllyng- 
ham,'^  in  a  muster  roll  of  1580  it  was  reported  as  belonging  to  Sir  Thomas 
Grey,^  and  in  1593  the  manor  of  Coupland  was  included  in  the  lands 
entailed  by  Ralph  Grey.^"  In  1663  the  Grey  rent  roll,  including  the  mill, 
was  £140,  not  quite  double  that  of  the  only  other  landowner  of  consequence 
in  the  township, ^^  and  in  1672  William,  Lord  Grey,  settled  '  the  reputed 
manor  or  lordship  of  Coupland,  &c.,  together  with  the  mill  or  Coupland 
mill'  on  himself  for  life  with  remainder  to  his  son  Ralph  Grey,^'^  who 
succeeded  to  the  barony  on  the  death  of  his  elder  brother  Ford,  Lord  Grey, 
in  1701,  dying  himself  in  1706.  In  pursuance  of  his  will  and  by  virtue 
of  a  decree  of  the  court  of  chancery  his  portion  of  Coupland  was  sold  in 
1733.  the  purchaser  being  Robert  Paul  of  the  Customs  House  in  London, 
who  paid  ;£2,200  for  the  estate. ^'^     Paul  also  tried  in  vain  to  buy  the  other 

*  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  447,  m.  25do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xxv.  pp.  426-430. 

2  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  477,  m.  igdo — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvi.  p.  43.  Cf.  N.C.H.  vol.  i.  p.  239. 
A  document,  dated  1366,  seems  to  imply  that  William  Heron  of  Ford  and  his  son  Roger  were  wTongfuIly 
suspected  of  being  concerned  in  the  murder.     Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1364-1368,  p.  292. 

'  On  .\pril  24th,  1373,  the  Sheriff  of  Northumberland  was  ordered  to  take  into  the  King's  hand  the 
lands  which  had  belonged  to  Joan  widow  of  John  Coupland.  (Rot.  Fin.  49  Edw.  III.  ra.  7— Duke's  Tran- 
scripts, vol.  xxxii.  p.  185.)  On  the  following  12th  December,  the  chancellor  and  chamberlain  of  Berwick 
was  ordered  to  hold  an  inquest  after  her  death.     Rot.  Scot.  vol.  i.  p.  973. 

*  Pedes  Finium,  39  Edw.  III.  No.  137 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  274-276. 

5  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1369-1374,  p.  448  ;  Pedes  Finium,  47  Edw.  III.  No.  158— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol. 
xxxi.x.  pp.  312-315. 

«  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  87.  '  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  file  iii. 

«  Survey  of  the  Border,  15^1— Border  Holds,  p.  34.  '  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  15. 

»»  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  62.  "  Rate  Book,  1663— Hodgson,  pt.  iu.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

»■-  Coupland  and  .Vkeld  Title  Vccds— Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club  Proceedings,  \ul.  .xi.  p.  409. 
"  Ewart  Park  MSS.     Cf.  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  411. 


portion  of  the  manor  from  Sir  Chaloner  Ogle.^  His  own  portion  remained 
in  his  family  till  1777,  when  it  was  sold  to  Samuel  Phipps  of  Lincolns  Inn 
under  the  title  of  'all  the  town,  village,  &c.,  of  Coupland  .  .  .  and  the 
mill,  called  Coupland  mill,'  including  also  South  Coupland, ^  now  known 
as  Yeavering  though  it  is  not  within  the  borders  of  the  township  of  that 
name.  This  purchaser  by  his  will,  dated  September  i8th,  1789,  devised 
all  his  Northumberland  property  to  the  use  of  his  kinsman  Francis  Sitwell,^ 
who  in  1827  conveyed  '  all  that  water  corn  mill  in  the  township  of  Coupland 
and  the  lands  belonging  thereto'  to  Matthew  CuUey,  who  already  owned 
Akeld,*  and  who  three  years  later  succeeded  to  the  other  portion  of 

The  Fourth  Part  of  the  Manor. — There  are  few  allusions  to  the  owners 
of  the  fourth  part  of  Coupland  during  the  middle  ages.  When  and  how 
this  portion  was  detached  from  the  manor  held  by  William  of  Akeld 
we  cannot  tell,  but  by  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century  Robert 
Haggerston  held  it,  and  in  the  fifteenth  century  it  was  still  held  apart 
from  the  manor,^  though  by  whom  we  do  not  know.  In  1478  Thomas 
Ilderton  died  seised  in  tail  male,  together  with  Isabel  his  wife,  of  one  tenement 
and  100  acres  of  land  in  Coupland  worth  yearly  £6,  held  of  Thomas  Grey  by 
the  third  part  of  one  knight's  fee  as  of  the  moiety  of  the  Barony  of 
Muschamp.^  This  probably  was  the  fourth  part  of  the  manor,  though 
the  service  is  out  of  proportion  to  the  one  knight  owed  for  Akeld,  Coupland 
and  Yeavering  together.  There  is  little  doubt  that  it  is  identical  with 
the  property  held  by  the  family  of  Wallis  in  Coupland  during  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries."  This  family  first  appears  in  the  township  in 
1563,^  when  Gilbert  Wallis  of  Akeld  bought  land  there  from  John  Forster 
of  Bamburgh,  lord  warden  of  the  Middle  Marches,^  and  four  years  later 
James  Wallis  of  Coupland  bought  from  Thomas  Forster  of  Adderstone, 

1  Letter  of  Samuel  Ketilby  to  Robert  Paul,  December  13th,  1734 — Ewart  Park  MSS. 

'  Coupland  Title  Deeds — Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  412.  'Copeland  Farm'  consisting 
of  644  acres  i  rood  11  poles  was  offered  for  sale  in  1770.  From  the  description  it  evidently  lay  on  both  sides 
of  the  river  Glen  and  it  included  a  newly  erected  corn  mill.  It  was  contiguous  to  Ewart  and  Yeavering 
which  were  both  held  by  the  same  tenant  WiUiam  Pringle.    Advertisement  in  Hodgson  MSS.  Kirknewton,  p.  1 2. 

'  Coupland  Title  Deeds — Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  412.  *  Ibid.  p.  414. 

'  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  pp.  65,  87.  A  Thomas  Haggerston  had  been  resident  in  the  township  in  1279. 
Northumberland  Assize  Rolls,  (Surtees  Soc.)  p.  235. 

*  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Edw.  IV.  file  75.  '  Cf.  page  235. 

'  Mackenzie,  Northumberland,  vol.  i.  p.  374,  following  Wallis,  Northumberland,  vol.  ii.  p.  480,  who  cites 
Cliillingham  MSS.,  says  that  Coupland  was  'the  seat  of  lidward  Wallace  in  the  reign  of  Edward  II.  and  of 
Wilham  Wallace  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ehzabeth." 

'  Coupland  Deeds — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xxv.  p.  17'). 


elder  brother  of  John  Forster,  'all  his  messuage  land,  tenements,  &c.,  in 
Coupland,'  being  property  purchased  the  previous  year  from  John  Heron 
of  Bockenfield  and  Humphrey  Heron  of  Eshot.^  Many  of  the  family 
lived  in  Coupland,  for  in  the  muster  of  1584  no  less  than  six  of  the  seven 
men,  mentioned  under  that  township,  were  named  Wallis.^  Some  were 
tenants  under  the  Greys,  and  in  1589  Sir  Thomas  Grey  bequeathed  for 
twenty-one  years  to  the  eldest  son  of  John  Wallis  of  Coupland  the  tenement 
then  in  the  occupation  of  his  stepmother.^  In  1600  James  Wallis  levied  a 
fine  with  respect  to  6  messuages,  6  cottages,  6  gardens  and  land,  furze  and 
heath  in  Coupland.^  Eight  years  later  this  same  name  occurs  in  connec- 
tion with  property  there,^  and  it  is  also  a  James  Wallis  who  in  1642  settled 
his  lands  in  the  township  on  his  own  issue  in  tail  male  with  remainder  to 
the  issue  of  Richard  Wallis  of  Humbleton,  George  Wallis  of  Learmouth 
and  James  Wallis  of  Wooler.^  This  property  was  valued  at  ;^8o  annually 
in  1663,  when  James  Wallis  still  held  it,^  but  it  did  not  include  'Coupland 
Tower',  which  he  purchased  two  years  later  from  his  kinsman  Richard 
Wallis,  together  with  certain  lands  in  Humbleton  for  £850.^  This  man 
may  have  been  identical  with  the  James  Wallis  of  Coupland  who  mortgaged 
his  lands  in  Akeld  and  Coupland  in  1689  and  1691,^  and  whose  successor, 
James  Wallis  of  Knaresdale,  was  in  1693  a  minor  in  the  guardianship  of 
Vaughan  Phillips,  son-in-law  of  the  last  owner. i"  Now,  at  any 
rate,  if  not  before,  the  Wallises  of  Coupland  and  Knaresdale  were  identical, 
and  in  1713  Ralph  Wallis  of  Knaresdale  sold  Coupland  and  Akeld  to  the 
Ogles,  from  whom  it  ultimately  passed  to  the  family  of  CuUey  as  described 
under  Akeld. ^^  Till  1728  the  two  portions  of  the  manor  still  lay  inter- 
mixed with  one  another,  but  in  that  year  the  respective  owners  affected  an 
exchange  whereby  each  held  a  compact  estate. ^^ 

'  Coupland  Deeds — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  .\.xv.  p.  175.  -  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  157. 

*  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  175. 

*  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  p.  70.     The  defendant  was  John  Heron. 

'  Money  levied  at  Assizes  in  Northumberland,  6  James  I. — Waterford  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  769. 

'  Coupland  Deeds — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xxv.  p.  176. 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

'  Coupland  Deeds — Berwickshire  Xaturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  409.  •  Ibid.  p.  410. 

"  Ibid.  Cf.  Arch.  Aeliana.  N.S.  vol.  xxv.  p.  176.  In  1715  Mary  Phillips  ot  York,  widow,  daughter  of 
James  Wallis  late  of  Coupland,  registered  among  the  Roman  CathoUc  Estates  an  annuity  of  /40  out  of 
Coupland  now  the  inheritance  of  Ralph  Wallis  of  Knaresdale,  granted  January  17th  3  James  II.  through  her 
father's  natural  love  and  affection.  {Registers  of  Roman  Catholics'  Estates,  p.  59.)  Her  mother  seems  to 
have  been  Margery  WaUis  and  her  husband  probably  Vaughan  Phillips.  {The  English  Catholic  Non-jurors 
of  1715,  by  E.  E.  Estcourt  and  J.  O.  Payne  (Loudon,  1885),  p.  209). 

"  See  page  236. 

"  Letter  of  Mr.  Samuel  Kettilby,  August  8th,  1 734— Ewart  Park  MSS. 




Arms  :    Per  pale  indented  argent  and  sable,  on  a  chief  engrailed  ermine  between  three  talbots  heads  erased  or, 

as  many  roses  gules. 

John  Culley  of  Beamont  Hill,  =  Elizabeth  [widow  of  George  Bellamy,  sister  and  heir 
parish  of  Haughton  le  Skerne,  |  of  Robert  Parkinson  of  Chester-le-Street]  ;  buried 
buried  20th  March,  1690  {g).  1       loth  November,  1658  (g). 

Matthew  Culley  of  Beamont  Hill,  son  and  heir ;  buried  24th  =p  Anne     Shaw,    buried 
January,  1701/2  {g)  ;   will  dated  ist  January,  1701/2.  14th  May,  1686  {g). 

Robert  Culley,  baptised  19th 
December,  1643  (g). 

John  Culley,  baptised 
2nd  November, 
1 67 1  (g)  ;  died  in 

Mary,  daughter  of  =  John  Culley  of  Beamont  Hill, 
son  and  heir;  baptised  2nd 
June,  1674  {g)  ;  will  dated 
i6th  June,  1753;  pr.  1755. 

Michael  Harrison  of 
Hurworth ;  married 
1696  {g). 

[Anne  Gates,  widow,  married 
4th  March,  174 1/2,  at 
is^orton;  buried  there  25th 
June,  1770]. 

Matthew  Culley  of  Bea- 
mont Hill,  baptised 
28th  September,  1697 
(g)  ;  named  in  his 
grandfather's  will. 


Michael  Culley,  baptised  17th  September,  1700  (g). 
John  Culley,  baptised  nth  July,  1703  (g). 
Thomas  Culley,  baptised  17th  September,    1704  {g). 
Robert  Culley,  baptised   19th  December,   1706  {g)  ; 
buried  19th  March,  1706/7  (g). 

Anne,  baptised  2nd  May,  1699  (g); 

[wife  of  William  Harrison]. 
Mary,  baptised  17th  February, 

1 70 1/2  (g)  ;     buried  9th  June, 

1703  te)- 

Matthew  Culley  of  Denton;  parish 
of  Gainford  ;  baptised  i6th 
November,  1685  {g)  ;  to  whom 
his  father  gave  lands  in  Great 
Aycliffe,  held  by  lease  from 
the  Dean  and  Chapter  of 
Durham  ;  purchased  lands 
in  Denton  in  1722  ;  buried 
17th  December,  1762,  Den- 
ton ;  will  dated  3rd  March, 

Eleanor,  daughter 
of  Edward  Sur- 
tees  of  Mains- 
forth ;  married 
29th  September, 
1719  ;  buried  at 
Denton,  17th 

June,  1776,  aged 
80  ;  will  dated 
loth  August, 



Elizabeth,  baptised  2nd  April,  1674  {g)  ;    married 

June,  1708,  Thomas  Sawyer  of  Yarm. 
Jane,  baptised  i6th  November,  1676  (g) ;  married 

1 6th  May,     1703,    William    Wastell   of    Great 

Mary,     baptised     23rd     February,      1678/9     {g)  ; 

married    4th   May,   1708,   John    Martindale   of 

Auckland  St.  Helen's. 
Dorothy,   baptised     19th    September,    1682   {g)  ; 

married    5th    June,     171 1,    Thomas     Reed     of 


I  I  M 


Matthew  Culley,  baptised  24th  May,  1722  {g); 
iSth  August,  1722  (g). 

Edward  Culley,  baptised  27th  June,  1724  {h). 

Robert  Culley  of  Denton,  son  and  heir,  and  of  Darling- 
ton, solicitor;  born  8th  November,  1726;  baptised  ist 
December,  1726  (h);  died  at  Denton,  12th  August, 
1783;   unmarried;   will  dated  5th  March,  1772. 

Edward  Culley,  baptised  3rd  June,  1730  (h)  ;  died 
17th  November,  1749,  aged  19;  buried  Denton. 

John  Culley,  baptised  6th  May,  1729  (A);  died 
22nd    February,   1748,    aged   20;  buried  Denton. 

Matthew  Culley  of  Akeld, : 
baptised  14th  Septem- 
ber, 1731  ;  succeeded  to 
Denton  on  the  death  of 
his  brother  in  1783  ; 
died  at  Wark  i6th 
December,  1804,  aged 
74  ;  buried  Kirknew- 
ton  ;  will  dated  7th 
July,  1804. 

Elizabeth,  only  daughter 
of  Thomas  Bates  of 
Halton  ;  married  loth 
July,  1783.  at  Cor- 
bridge  ;  died  at  Akeld, 
loth  February,  1814, 
aged  66  (b);  will  dated 
13th  February,  1805. 

(')  Jane,  daughter  of  =: 
Walter  Atkinson, 
born  30th  October, 
1747 ;  married  29th 
April,  1777  [d);  died 
at  Fenton  17th 
January,  1780. 

George  Culley  of  Fowberry,  = 

born  23rd  February,  1735; 
died  at  Fowberry  ; 
buried  nth  May,  1813, 
aged  7S(f);  will  dated 
30th  October,  1810  ; 
proved  1813. 

(2)  Isabella,  daughter  of  = 
Thomas  Spours  of 
Heckley  ;  married 
24th  December,  1787, 
at  Edlingham  ;  buried 
29th  June,  1788,  at 

(')  Hannah,  sister  of 
John  Nesbitt  of  An- 
croft ;  married  at  An- 
croft  1 2th  June, 
1794;  diedat  Easing- 
ton  Grange,  aged  81  ; 
buried  2nd  October, 
1824  (/). 

Matthew  Culley  of  Fowberry  and  of  Denton,  son  and 
heir  ;  born  at  Fenton,  baptised  15th  February, 
1778;  died  unmarried,  20th  June,  1849,  aged  73  (d,  e). 

Eleanor,  born  at  Fenton,  3rd  July,  1779  ;  married 
9th  June,  1803,  James  Darling  of  thechapelry  of 
Cornhill  (/) ;  she  died  14  Apr.,  1806,  aged  27  (/). 



Thomas  CuUey, 
baptised  6th 
Feb.,  1738/9 
(A)  ■;  died  in 


James  Ciilley  of  Grindon,  parish  ^ 

of    Norham  ; 


gest    son  ; 

born  1st  May, 


died  15th 




Norham ;  will 

proved  at  York, 

nth  October, 



Margaret,  daughter 
of  John  Picker- 
ing ;  baptised 
19th  May,  1754 
(/) ;  married  20th 
December,  1781 

Jane,  baptised  21st  September, 
1720  (^)  ;  died  at  Fowberry, 
aged  96,  buried  23rd  January, 
1816  (/). 

Anne,  baptised  3rd  October, 
1725,  buried  30th  May,  1752 

Eleanor,  only  child,  born  Crookham  East  Field,  baptised  8th  April,  1784  (/) ; 
19th  August,  1805,  Grieve  Smith  of  Budle  (/).  ^ 


Matthew     Culley     of    Coupland  =  Margaret      Anne, 

Castle  and  of  Akeld,  son  and 
heir ;  born  at  Wark ;  baptised 
25th  September,  1786  {c)  ; 
of  Peterhouse,  Cambridge  ; 
matriculated  20th  May.  1805  ; 
a  Fellow  of  the  Geological 
Society,  1825  ;  died  at  Coup- 
land,  19th  April,  1834,  aged 
24  (6);  will  dated  15th  April, 

daughter  of  Ed- 
ward Tewart 
of  Southgate, 
Middlesex ;  mar- 
ried 7th  .\ugust, 
1831,  at  Ed- 
monton ;  died  at 
Coupland,  nth 
•■\pril,  1S34. 

I  Ml 

Thomas  Culley,       Eleanor,  born  at  Fenton  ;  baptised 
born  at  Wark;  T3th  January.  1785  ;  married  22nd 

baptised    25th  April.  1816,  Henry  Morton. 

May.   1 791  (c)  ;       Elizabeth,  bom  at  Wark;  baptised 
buried  at  17th  February,   1788  (c)  ;    wife  of 

Carham,     19th  Rev.    Christ.    Robinson,    vicar   of 

May,    1792    (c).  Kirknewton. 

Jane,  born  at  Wark  ;  baptised  19th 
June,  1795  (c)  ;  married  3rd 
December,  1824,  Henry  Stobart. 

Harriet  Mary  Jane,  ^  Matthew   Tewart  Culley  of  Coupland 

daughter  of  Rev. 
Thomas  Knight ; 
baptised  28th 
May,  1830  (/) 
married  6th  Oct 
ober,  1859  (/) 
died  19th  May 

Castle  and  of  Akeld  ;  born  at 
Coupland,  14th  October,  1832  ;  of 
University  College,  Oxford  ;  matric- 
ulated 27th  April,  1852  ;  B.A., 
1856  ;  M.A.,  1858  ;  high  sheriff  of 
Northumberland,  1869  ;  died  2nd 
March,  1889  ;  will  dated  September, 

Eleanor,  daughter  of 
George  Darling  of  Fow- 
berry; married  13th  June, 
1882,  at  Guston,  Kent. 

Margaret  Eleanor,  bom 
2nd  April,  1834  ;  mar- 
ried her  cousin,  John 
H.  Stobart  of  Ether - 
ley,  county   Durham. 


Geoffrey  Matthew  George  Culley,  a  captain.  Royal 
West  Kent  Regiment ;  only  child  of  marriage  ; 
born  19th  March,  1883;  killed  in  action  15th 
September,  1916.  ■^, 

Matthew  Culley  of  Coupland  Castle 
and  of  Akeld,  bom  3rd  Sept- 
ember, i860  ;  of  Oscott  College, 
in  holy  orders  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  and  a  Domestic  Pre- 
late of  the  Pope ;  died  igth 
August,  1920. 

Thomas  Knight  Culley  of  Yeavering; 
born  West  Horton,  baptised 
8th  December,  1861  (d). 

Maud,  daughter  of  William 
Talbot ;  married  7th  June, 
1900,  at  Houston,  Texas. 


Henry  Morton  Culley,   son  and  heir 
Santa  Barbara,  California. 

born   nth   January.  1909,  at 

John  Henry  Culley,  of  Escondide,  New 
Mexico  ;  born  West  Horton,  baptised 
1 0th  May,  1864  ;  of  Brasenose  College, 
Oxford,  matriculated  22nd  October, 
1883;  succeeded  to  Coupland  Castle 
and  Akeld  on  the  death  of  his 
eldest  brother  in  1920. 

Constance  Mary, 
daughter  of  John 
Mackeller  of  Sweet 
Water,  New  Mex- 
ico ;  married  loth 
.•\pril,  1892,  at  Las 
Vegas,  New  Mexico. 

George  Christ- 
opher Bolton 
Culley,  born 
at  West  Hor- 
ton, baptised 
2 1  St  Decern  - 
ber,  1865.  ^ 

I    I    I 
Ethel      Harriet,      wnfe     of 

Theodore  George  Martin. 
Margaret  Elizabeth,  second 

wife    of    Major    F'rancis 

H.  Sitwell. 
Sarah     Gcorgina    Eleanor, 

wife  of  Vivian  Messiter. 

Matthew  James  Culley,  son  and  heir,  born  3rd  October,  1893. 

Mary  Elizabeth. 

Margaret  Jane. 

{p)   Kirknewton  Register. 

(b)  Monumental  Inscriptions,  Kirknewton. 

(c)  Carham  Register. 

(d)  Chatton  Register. 
Vol.   XI. 

(e)   Monumental  Inscriptions,  Chatton. 

(/)    Ford  Register. 

(g)  Haughton  le  Skerne  Register. 

(A)  Denton  Register. 



Freeholders. — The  Baxter  family,  which  held  land  in  several 
townships  of  Kirknewton,  did  so  in  Coupland  also.  In  1285  Thomas  Baxter 
of  Lanton  appears  as  a  leaseholder  there/  and  in  1295  he  was  in  possession 
of  part  of  the  demesne  and  ultimately  of  all  that  portion  belonging  to  his 
kinsman,  Sir  David  Coupland.^  In  1301  he  sued  Simon  Coupland  for 
disseising  him  of  certain  lands  there, ^  but  he  had  died  before  1312,  when  his 
son  David  was  defendant  in  a  fine  wherebv  the  manor  was  entailed  on 
Joan  Coupland.*  This  David,  son  of  Thomas  Baxter,  seems  to  have  gone 
by  the  name  of  David  of  Lanton,  and  it  was  under  that  name  that,  together 
with  Elizabeth  his  wife,  he  purchased  in  1317  the  corn  mill  with  all  its  rights 
from  Agnes,  widow  of  Walter  of  Howtel,  who  had  been  given  it  by  her  father 
Sir  David  Coupland.^  None  the  less  when  he  died  in  1323,  leaving 
a  son  named  Thomas,  aged  14,  as  his  heir,  he  was  only  credited  with  a 
carucate  of  land  in  Coupland,  held  of  Simon  Coupland  by  service  of  one 
pound  of  cummin  yearly,^  but  that  he  was  identical  with  David,  son  of 
Thomas  Baxter,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  his  son  Thomas,  who  had 
resumed  the  name  of  Baxter,  was  sued  in  1338  by  Roger,  son  of  Agnes  and 
Walter  of  Howtel,  for  the  mill,  which  the  plaintiff  alleged  had  been  given 
to  Agnes  in  frank  marriage  by  her  father  Simon  Coupland,  and  therefore 
should  devolve  on  him  as  heir  to  his  brother  Thomas,  who  had  died  without 
issue.  Thomas  Baxter  in  reply  produced  the  charter  whereby  Simon 
Coupland  conveyed  the  mill  to  his  daughter  in  fee  simple,  but  this  did  not 
satisfy  Roger  of  Howtel,  and  the  matter  was  referred  to  a  jury.'^  The 
result  of  the  action  is  not  recorded,  but  it  puts  beyond  doubt  the  identifica- 
tion of  David  of  Lanton  as  the  father  of  Thomas  Baxter.  The  latter  did 
not  long  enjoy  his  property,  for  by  1369  his  son  David  had  not  only 
succeeded  him,  but  had  died  himself,  leaving  a  widow  Margaret,  who  had  by 
then  consoled  herself  with  a  second  husband  in  the  person  of  Thomas 
Blenkinsopp.  The  property  in  Coupland  then  consisted  of  a  carucate  of 
land  and  meadow  in  demesne  together  with  a  toft,  to  which  5  acres  of  meadow 
were  attached,  ij  husbandlands  with  tofts,  a  waste  mill  and  a  cottage,  the 
last  being  valued  at  6s.   a  year.^     Margaret  was  awarded  dower  in  this, 

'  De  Banco  Roll.  No.  59,  m.  84 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  68.  *  See  pages  215-216. 

'  Assize  Roll,  38-21  Edw.  I. — -Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xix.  p.  126. 

♦  Pedes  Finiiim,  5  Edw.  II.  No.  18 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .\ii.  pp.  26-27. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14.  «  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  vi.  p.  2S9. 

■  P.R.O.  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  313,  m.  302do.  "  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21. 


but  in  137 1  she  was  compelled  to  surrender  a  third  of  this  property,  now 
described  as  three  messuages,  160  acres  of  land,  20  acres  of  meadow  and 
a  mill,  to  her  mother-in-law,  Joan,  widow  of  Thomas  Baxter  and  now  wife 
of  Sir  Robert  Clavering,  as  her  dower,  which  for  some  reason  had  not  been 
allotted.^  The  Baxter  family  seems  to  have  come  to  an  end  with  David 
Baxter,  as  the  heirs  in  1639  were  Henry  Lilburn  and  David  Lucker.  When 
the  latter  died  in  1379,  however,  he  held  no  land  in  Coupland,  but  his  uncle 
Henry  Lucker  may  be  said  to  have  been  connected  with  the  township  in 
having  been  concerned  in  the  murder  of  Sir  John  Coupland. ^ 

It  is  quite  probable  that  the  Baxter  inheritance  came  shortly  after 
this  into  the  Manners  family.  Not  only  are  several  of  the  deeds  relating 
to  this  property  to  be  found  among  the  muniments  at  Belvoir,  but  when 
in  1402  Robert  Manners  '  le  pier '  gave  to  his  son  John  in  frank  marriage  all 
his  demesne  lands  in  Coupland,  the  gift  also  included  the  mill,^  which  we 
have  seen  formed  a  part  of  the  Baxter  property.  No  further  reference 
to  these  lands  is  made  till  1542,  when  the  first  earl  of  Rutland  mentioned 
them  in  his  will,*  and  twenty  years  later  the  second  earl,  just  before  his 
death,  sold  the  whole  of  his  property  in  the  township,  which  then  only 
consisted  of  a  tenement  worth  13s.  4d.  annually,  held  for  life  by  one  Richard 
TurnbuU,  to  Ralph  Swinhoe  of  Cornhill.^  There  is  no  indication  whether 
this  is  to  be  identified  with  the  land  owned  in  the  township  by  John  HaU 
of  Otterburn,  who  in  1595  bequeathed  a  life  interest  therein  to  his  younger 
son  Thomas  with  remainder  to  his  eldest  son  William.^  This  property, 
described  as  'the  four  nobles'  lands  of  ancient  yearly  rent,'  was  mortgaged 
by  John  Hall  of  Otterburn  in  1642,  and  in  1654  William  Hall  of  Otterburn 
was  mentioned  in  connection  therewith,^  but  apparently  he  was  the  last 
of  his  family  to  own  it. 

The  Castle. — There  seems  to  have  been  no  tower  or  fortification 
in  Coupland  till  a  comparatively  late  date  in  the  history  of  border 
warfare.  In  early  days  the  owner  evidently  lived  at  Akeld,  and  'it  was 
probably  not  till  the  advent  of  the  Wallis  family  that  any  lord's  dwelling 
was  built.     Even  then  it  only  belonged  to  the  quarter  of  the  manor,  and  was 

1  P.R.O.  De  Banco  Roll.  No.  441,  m.  123110.  =  N.C.H.  vol.  i.  p.  239.     Cf.  page  221. 

3  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  ■"  North  Country  Wills,  vol.  i.  p.  187. 

5  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  14.  *  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  254. 

'  Coupland  Title  Deeds — Beruickshire  Naturalists'  Club.  vol.  xi.  pp.  408-409. 



never  what  may  be  called  a  manor  house.  In  1514  there  was 
'nether  fortresses  nor  barmekyne'  there.^  and  there  is  no  direct 
evidence  as  to  the  date  of  the  building  earlier  than  1619,  a  date 
carved  on  the  chimney-piece  of  the  'great  chamber'  or  'haunted 
room'  with  the  initials  G.W.  and  M.W.  on  either  side  of  it.  The  style 
and  character  of  the  work  implies  that  it  was  built  in  the 
later  years  of  the  sixteenth  or  in  the  early  seventeenth  century, 
In     any     case     it     followed     after     the     border     commission     of     1584, 

which  recom- 
mended the  erec- 
tion  of  a  chain 
of  forts  to  protect 
the  frontier. 2 

The  castle  com- 
prises a  tower  three 
storeys  in  height, 
measuring  on  the 
exterior  47  feet  by 
29  feet,  with  a  pro- 
jection on  the  south 
side,  of  tower  form, 
which  is  carried 
above  the  level  of 
the  tower  proper, 
and  contains  the  entrance  and  staircase.  The  entrance  door  with  its  massive 
iron  hinges  is  on  the  west  side :  it  is  round-headed,  with  a  roll  moulding  on 
the  edge.  It  opens  into  a  circular  newel  stone  stair  10  feet  in  diameter. 
Immediately  within  the  entrance  is  the  door  giving  access  to  the  basement 
or  ground  floor  chamber,  36  feet  3  inches  from  east  to  west  and  18  feet 
6  inches  in  width.  This  is  ceiled  with  a  barrel  stone  vault.  The  apartment 
at  a  later  date  has  been  divided  by  a  thick  wall  continued  to  the  roof,  in 
which  modern  fireplaces  are  provided  at  each  floor  level.  The  staircase, 
10  feet  diameter,  reaches  only  to  the  first  floor  apartment,  which  is  a  little 
larger  than  that  below,   and  formed  the  'great'  or  principal  chamber   of 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  ^4. 

'  It  does  not  figure  in  the  Plat  of  Castles  by  Christopher  Dacrc,  1584 — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79. 

Fig.    10.— Coupland  Castle  circa   18 10 


the  'castle'  being  warmed  by  the  fireplace  already  mentioned.  Near  to  the 
fireplace  was  a  window  which  commanded  and  afforded  protection  to  the 
doorway  below,  the  recess  and  stone  seats  on  either  side  alone  remaining. 
The  loops  or  windows  lighting  this  and  other  apartments  have  been  blocked 
up  or  enlarged.  The  access  to  the  second  floor  is  by  a  smaller  stair,  6  feet 
3  inches  diameter,  opening  off  the  first  floor  apartment,  and  cleverly 
arranged  in  the  angle  of  the  buildings  above  the  entrance  doorway.  The 
masonry  forming  it  is  projected  or  oversailed  and  continued  as  a  circular 
turret.  Off  this  small  stair  access  is  obtained  to  the  large  second  floor 
apartment,  and  to  three  small  rooms  12  feet  by  10  feet  6  inches  arranged 
above  each  other,  over  the  larger  stair  which  terminates  at  the  first  floor 
level.  Above  the  second  floor  apartment  is  a  gabled  roof,  erected  on  the 
inner  edge  of  the  main  walls,  and  round  it  is  a  walk,  protected  by  a  parapet 
and  supported  by  projecting  corbels.  The  staircase  tower  has  a  similar 
parapet,  and  both  have  projecting  gargoyles  to  carry  off  the  water. 


At  the  foot  of  the  Cheviot  HiUs  between  Coupland  and  Humbleton 
there  nestles  the  little  village  of  Akeld^  on  the  picturesque  bum  of  that 
name.  It  was  held  in  chief  by  the  great  Robert  Muschamp,  but  subinfeu- 
dated  to  William  of  Akeld  together  with  Coupland  and  Yeavering  for  one 
knight's  fee  of  old  enfeoffment.^  This  fee  passed  on  the  division  of 
Robert  Muschamp's  estate  at  his  death  in  1250  to  his  granddaughters 
Muriel  and  Margery,  the  daughters  of  the  earl  of  Strathearn,^  and  ultimately 
to  the  latter — later  caUed  Mary — and  her  husband  Nicholas  Graham.*  The 
overlordship  continued  to  form  part  of  the  Graham  moiety  of  the  barony, 
and  descended  as  described  under  Wooler,  but  by  1443  the  three  townships 
were  no  longer  held  in  chivalry,  being  described  as  held  of  the  manor  of 

1  Earlier  Ahelda,  Hakelda.  Akekdd,  Akild.  Akil,  Ahhille.  Akyed,  Akell.  Old  Norse  o=river  and  kelda= 
well  or  spring.  Keld  is  used  locally  of  a  marshy  place  (Heslop  s.v.)  and  the  whole  name  is  descriptive  of  the 
position  of  Akeld  on  the  edge  of  the  Till  valley.  .\t  one  time  the  final  d  was  lost  in  the  local  pronunciation 
but  ultimately  the  spelling  pronunciation  was  restored.  The  Census  returns  are :  1801,153;  1811,164;  1821, 
167;  1831,171;  1841,182;  1851,186;  1861,162;  1871,154;  1881,141;  1891,173;  1901,136;  1911,138. 
The  township  comprises  2207-873  acres. 

2  Testa  de  Nevilt — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  210-211.  '  Ca!.  oj  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  93- 
*  Inq.  A.Q.D.  12  Edw   II.  No.  82 — Bain,  Cal.  oJ  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  120. 


Wooler  by  socage/  and  by  1480  the  overlordship  as  well  as  the  manors 
themselves  had  been  acquired  by  the  Greys  of  Chillingham,^  who  continued 
to  hold  it,  as  far  as  Akeld  and  Yeavering  are  concerned,  in  1568.^ 

Descent  of  the  Manor. — The  first  lord  of  the  manor  of  Akeld,  of 
whom  we  hear,  is  Robert  of  Akeld,  who  preceded  William  of  Akeld 
mentioned  above.*  The  latter  was  still  living  in  1255,^  but  there  is  no 
further  mention  of  his  name  in  connection  with  the  township,  and  in  view 
of  later  information  there  seems  a  strong  probability  that  the  family  ended 
in  four  co-heiresses.^  One  quarter  of  the  manor  came  into  the  possession 
of  the  Prendergest  family,  which  first  appears  in  1279  when  Margaret, 
widow  of  Adam  Prendergest,  recovered  against  Henry  Prendergest  dower 
in  one  messuage,  300  acres  of  land,  10  acres  of  meadow  and  4  acres  of 
wood  in  Akeld."  This  leads  to  the  inference  that  each  of  the  four  defendants 
in  a  case  brought  by  one  William  son  of  Robert  Parys  in  1291  was  the 
holder  of  a  fourth  part  of  the  manor.  The  plaintiff  claimed  a  messuage,  30 
acres  of  land  and  one  acre  of  meadow  in  Akeld  on  the  ground  that  his 
father  died  seised  of  them,  but  Thomas  Haggerston,  Robert  of  Bellingham, 
Thomas  of  Detchant  and  John  Prendergest,  who  held  the  property  in  equal 
portions,  maintained  that  Robert  Parys  had  been  exiled  and  outlawed  for 
murdering  his  wife  Hawys,  and  his  lands  were  therefore  forfeit,  a  defence 
which  a  reference  to  the  records  found  valid. ^  It  thus  seems  probable, 
that  on  Robert's  forfeiture  each  of  the  four  owners  of  the  manor  had 
received  a  fourth  share  of  the  escheated  property,  and  of  these  John  Pren- 
dergest was  doubtless  the  heir  of  the  Henry  Prendergest  of  1279.  The 
subsidy  roll  of  1296,  drawn  up  only  three  years  later  than  the  judgment  in 

1  P.K.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  file  iii.  When  the  feudal  aid  of  1428  was  collected  they  were 
still  held  in  chivalry  three  parts  of  them  being  held  for  half  a  knight's  fee  and  the  fourth  part  of  Akeld 
for  one  fifth  of  a  knight's  fee,  no  mention  being  made  of  the  fourth  part  of  the  other  two  vills.  Feudal  Aids, 
vol.  iv.  p.  87. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Edw.  VI.  file  75. 

'  Liber  feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixiii.  Coupland  is  not  mentioned  anywhere  in  this 
document,  but  probably  it  also  continued  to  be  so  held  and  was  omitted  from  the  record  by  mistake. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84.  Robert  of  Akeld  and  William  of  Akeld  son  of  Robert  of  Akeld  both 
witnessed  Robert  of  Muschamp's  grant  of  Trollop  to  the  monks  of  Melrose.   Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  i.  pp.  268-269. 

5  Cal.  0/  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  93. 

"  John  Prendergest  held  one  quarter  of  the  manor  towards  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century  {I>iq. 
A.Q.D.  12  Edw.  II.  No.  82 — Bain,  Cal.  oj  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  120),  and  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth 
centuries  three  parts  of  the  manor  were  held  by  one  man  and  a  quarter  by  another.  {Feudal  .4  ids,  vol.  iv. 
pp.  65,  87.) 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  7-9  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  60-61,  70-71. 

«  Coram  Rege  Roll,  No.  128  ;  Assize  Roll,  22  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  p.  384  ;  vol.  xviii. 
pp.  109-110.     Judgment  was  given  in  1293. 


this  case,  does  not  throw  much  Hght  on  the  problem.  It  reveals  the 
township  as  both  populous  and  wealthy,  since  the  moveables  of  thirteen 
householders  reached  the  sum  of  £53.  The  wealthiest  inhabitant  was 
WiUiam  Palmer,  assessed  on  £13  8s.  4d.,  and  next  to  him  stood  the  Lady 
Lucy,  assessed  on  £10  15s.  2d.,  Thomas  Baret  with  £6  los.  4d.  and  Emma, 
wife  of  William,  with  £6  3s.  2d.^  It  is  very  improbable  that  any  of 
these,  with  the  exception  of  the  Lady  Lucy,  represented  the  manorial 
families,  and  she  was  probably  the  widow  of  one  of  the  four  lords,^  though 
not  of  John  Prendergest,  for  his  widow  named  Margaret  appears  three  years 
later.  She  then  claimed  dower  in  a  fourth  part  of  the  manor  from  John, 
son  of  William  Heselrig,  in  2  messuages,  40  acres  of  land  and  8  acres  of 
meadow  from  Robert  Palmer,  and  in  an  exactly  similar  holding  from  W^illiam 
Palmer.^  John  Prendergest  had  thrown  in  his  lot  with  his  Scottish 
countrymen  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  with  England  and  his  lands  in 
Akeld  had  escheated  not  to  the  crown,  as  might  have  been  expected  in 
case  of  treason,  but  to  the  overlord  Nicholas  Graham,  who,  a  Scot  himself, 
suffered  forfeiture  for  treason  shortly  after  this.  Nicholas  gave  a  fourth 
part  of  the  manor  to  one  William  Heselrigg,  who  died  shortly  afterwards, 
leaving  the  property  to  his  son  John,  a  lad  under  age.^  Doubtless  it  was 
the  minority  of  the  heir  which  had  tempted  Margaret  to  put  forward  her 
quite  inadmissible  claim,  but  the  minor's  guardians  did  not  neglect  to 
do  their  utmost  to  secure  his  inheritance,  since  in  1302  they  tried  to  recover 
a  messuage  and  24  acres  of  land  in  the  township,  once  part  of  the  Prender- 
gest property.  The  jury  found  that  these  lands  had  been  alienated  to 
William  Palmer  by  John  Prendergest  two  years  before  he  took  his 
departure  for  Scotland,  as  it  politely  put  it.^  The  Palmer  family  was 
evidently  a  large  one.  This  William  was  doubtless  identical  with  the 
man  of  the  same  name  assessed  so  highly  in  1296,  another  named  Robert 
was  assessed  on  £j  lis.  od.,^  and  a  third,  named  Thomas,  also 
dwelt  in  the  township  as  his  house  there  was  burgled  in  1293.'' 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fols.  109-no. 

*  There  is  mention  in  1255  of  a  Thomas  of  Akeld  and  Lucy  his  wife  [Pedes  Finium,  40  Hen.  III.  No.  154 — 
Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  i.  p.  302),  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  connected  with  the  owners  of 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  130,  m.  17 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  x.xviii.  pp.  476-477. 

■•  Ing.  A.Q.D.  12  Edw.  II.  No.  82 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  120. 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts;  vol.  xix.  pp.  113-116. 

"  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fols.  109-110. 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  70. 


John  Heselrigg  had  a  short  and  uneas}'  tenure  of  the  Prendergest 
property  in  Akeld.  He  was  worried  by  a  charge  of  steahng  cattle,  brought 
by  WiUiam  Pahner,  who  failed  to  appear  in  court  to  substantiate  the 
accusation, 1  and  shortly  after,  when  he  had  only  held  the  lands  a 
little  over  two  years,  he  was  forcibly  evicted  by  Henry  Prendergest, 
who  claimed  them  as  brother  and  heir  of  John  Prendergest.  Henry, 
however,  also  joined  the  Scots,  and  the  property  was  then  taken  into 
the  king's  hands, ^  and  in  1316  was  granted  during  pleasure  to  Robert 
Felton,  king's  yeoman.^  With  the  fall  of  his  rival,  John  Heselrigg  put 
forward  his  claims  once  more,  and  got  an  order  for  inquiry,  the  result 
of  which  was  to  substantiate  his  claim,*  but  nothing  was  done,  and  in 
1329  steps  were  taken  to  restore  the  property  to  Henry  Prendergest, 
who  as  a  Scot  could  claim  his  English  lands  under  the  agreement  come 
to  in  the  negotiations  which  led  to  the  'Shameful  Peace'  of  1328.  It 
was  found  by  inquest  that  Henry  Prendergest,  knight,  had  held  a 
messuage,  40  acres  of  arable  land  and  two  husbandlands  in  Akeld, 
together  with  lands  in  Yeavering,  of  Sir  Nicholas  Meinill  for  a  quarter 
of  a  knight's  fee,  worth  before  the  war  60s.  but  now  leased  for  20s.  a 
year.^  In  vain  did  John  Heselrigg  petition  the  king,  pointing  out  the 
fact  that  two  justices  had  established  by  inquisition  that  Sir  Henry 
Prendergest  had  disseised  him  of  the  fourth  part  of  the  manor,^  and  in 
May,  1300,  the  order  for  restitution  to  the  Scottish  knight  was  issued." 
Five  years  later  another  member  of  this  Scottish  family  was  in  trouble 
over  his  property,  for  on  February  ist,  1335,  the  king  granted  to 
Thomas  Heton  and  his  heirs  the  lands  in  Akeld  which  had  escheated  to 
the  crown  by  the  rebellion  of  Adam  Prendergest,  a  Scot.^  Before  the  end 
of  the  year,  however,  Adam  had  made  his  submission  and  his   forfeited 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  133,  ra.  igdo — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  570. 

'  Inq.  A.Q.D.  12  Edw.  II.  No.  82 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  120. 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1313-1317,  p.  539;  Privy  Seals,  lo  Edw.  11.  file  9 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol. 
iii.  p.  no. 

*  Inq.  A.Q.D.  12  Edw.  II.  No.  82 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  120;  Cal.  of  Inquisitions, 
Miscellaneous,  vol.  ii.  p.  93. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  3  Edw.  III.  No.  i — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  iSo  ;  Cal.  of  Inq.  Miscellaneous,  vol. 
ii.  p.  261. 

'^Chancery  Files,  No.  132 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iii.  p.  181.  Bates,  Hist,  of  Northumberland, 
p.  159,  says  that  John  Haselrigg  of  Akeld  forfeited  his  lands  for  taking  part  in  the  Middleton  rising  in  1317, 
and  though  this  is  nowhere  alleged  in  the  documents,  this  may  account  for  his  failure  to  substantiate  his 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1327-1330,  p.  522.  *  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1334-1338,  p.  77. 


lands  were  restored  to  him.  Some  of  them  however,  lying  in  Akeld  and 
Yeavering,  being  still  in  the  king's  hands  and  not  having  been  so 
restored,  were  ordered  to  be  handed  over  by  writ  dated  November  24th, 
1335-^  It  would  seem  that  this  order  involved  a  cancellation  of  the 
previous  grant  to  Thomas  Heton^  ;  at  any  rate  Adam  Prendergest  is 
found  witnessing  a  deed  with  regard  to  lands  in  Akeld  in  1349,^  which 
presupposes  his  restoration,  and  possibly  his  residence  in  the  township.* 
It  is  however  by  no  means  clear  that  Adam  held  the  quarter  of  the 
manor,  though  he  may  have  done  so.  In  June,  1359,  the  escheator  of 
Northumberland  reported  that,  as  to  Adam  Prendergest's  tenements  in 
Akeld  and  Yeavering,  he  did  not  take  them  into  the  king's  hands,  but 
he  found  by  inquisition  that  Henry  Prendergest  lately  adhered  to  the  Scots, 
and  then  held  a  tenement  in  these  vills,  which  John  Coupland  formerly 
held,  consisting  of  the  fourth  part  of  the  hamlets  of  Akeld  and  Yeavering 
worth  yearly  40s.,  but  before  the  late  destruction  of  the  Scots  in  these 
parts  60s.  This  property  was  now  in  the  king's  hands. ^  The  wording 
of  this  return  implies  that  the  holdings  of  Adam  and  Henry  were 
distinct,  and  that  they  had  held  land  simultaneously  in  both  vills,  and 
that  Adam  continued  to  hold  his  share,  whereas  Henry  had  once  more 
suffered  forfeiture  for  joining  the  Scots.  The  statement  that  John 
Coupland  had  once  held  the  quarter  of  the  manor  is  unsubstantiated  by 
any  document,  but  he  was  certainly  given  it  now,  for,  together  with  a  fourth 
part  of  the  advowson  of  the  chapel  of  Akeld,  it  was  included  in  a  royal 
gift  of  lands  to  him  in  the  following  July.**  When  soon  after  this  the 
feudal  aid  of  1346  was  collected,  John  Coupland  was  returned  as 
holding  three  parts  of  Akeld,  Coupland  and  Yeavering  of  Peter  Mauley 
and  Elizabeth  his  wife  for  three  quarters  of  a  Knight's  fee,"  and  it  is 
thus   evident   that   he   had   acquired   or  inherited   two   other   portions   of 

1  Rot.  Scot.,  vol.  i.  p.  388. 

*  No  mention  of  these  lands  is  found  in  the  inquisition  on  Thomas  Hcton's  death  nor  in  that  of  his 
son  Alan,  to  whom  he  gave  his  lands  in  Hethpool.  None  the  less  reference  to  a  tenement  and  land  pertaining 
thereto  worth  3s.  annually  is  found  in  the  partition  of  .Plan's  estate  among  his  throe  daughters,  this  being 
assigned  to  Elizabeth  and  John  Fenwick.  Inq.  p.m.  12  Ric.  II.  No.  28 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii. 
p.  176.  Cf.  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  255.  It  is  possible  that  it  was  included  as  property  to  which  he  had 
claims  though  they  had  not  been  substantiated. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  2. 

'  In  1357  Isabel  widow  of  Adam  Prendergest  alluded  to  her  husband  having  in  1355  brought  wool  for 
safe  keeping  from  Prendergest  to  Haggerston,  which  implies  that  the  latter  was  also  his  property  and  that 
he  resided  there.     Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1354-1358,  p.  555. 

•''  Chancery  Files,  bundle  No.  265 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  iv.  p.  9. 

«  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  233-234.  '  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  65. 

Vol.  XI.  30 


the  manor,  though  at  what  time  and  by  what  means  remains  vinlcnown.  At 
his  death  the  property  went  to  his  widow  Joan,^  wlio  in  1372  ahenated 
it  with  her  other  lands  to  Richard  Arundel.^  When  Sir  John  Arundel 
died  in  1379,  the  manors  of  Akeld,  Coupland  and  Yeavering  were  valued 
at  ;^I2  annually,^  and  by  1428  they  had  passed  to  the  Greys,  doubtless 
having  been  sold  in  1408  together  with  the  moiety  of  Wooler.*  Sir 
Ralph  Grey  thus  held  three  parts  of  the  three  \'ills  for  half  a  knight's 
fee,^  valued  at  40s.   yearly  in   1443.^ 

Descent  of  Three  Quarters  of  the  Manor. — This  property,  doubtless 
the  three  parts  of  the  manor  as  described  in  1428,  continued  in  the 
Grey  family  and  its  successors  for  three  hundred  years.  In  1541  the 
township,  consisting  of  'xvi  husbandlands  all  plenyshed, '  was  reported  as 
'of  th'inherytaunce  of  ....  Mr.  Graj^e  of  Chyllyngham,"'  and  in  1663 
the  compilers  of  the  Rate  Book  give  his  descendant  Lord  Grey,  with  a 
rental  of  £250,  as  the  only  landowner  in  the  township.^  At  the  death 
of  Ford,  Lord  Grey,  in  1701  the  property  went  to  his  brother  Ralph, 
Lord  Grey,  in  pursuance  of  whose  will  and  by  virtue  of  a  decree  in 
the  court  of  chancery  Akeld  was  offered  for  sale  in  1733,  and  was 
bought  by  Samuel  Kettilby  of  Berwick  for  £4,200.^  The  latter  in  1737 
vainly  tried  to  purchase  Sir  Chaloner  Ogle's  portion  of  the  township, 
though  he  was  ready  to  pay  ;^i,8oo  for  it.i"  His  son,  Walter  Kettilby, 
sold  the  property  in  1767  for  Iti.,ooo  to  George  Sparrow,  formerly 
Barkas,  of  Washington,  county  Durham,^^  whose  grandson  George  Wingfield 
of  Mattingly,  county  Southampton,  succeeded  and  took  the  name  of 
Sparrow.  The  latter  sold  the  property  to  Matthew  Culley,  lord  of  Denton 
in   Teesdale,i2   whose   descendants   still   hold   it. 

Descent  of  One  Quarter  of  the  Manor. — One  of  the  four  quarters, 
into    which    the    manor    of    Akeld    was    divided,   had    a    quite    separate 

'  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1367-1370,  p.  39. 

^  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,   1369-137^,  p.  448:    Pedes  Fivium,  47  F.dw.  III.  No.   158— Duke's  Transcripts, 
vol.  xxxix.  pp.  312-315. 

^  Inq.  p.m.  3  Ric.  II.  No.  i — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  43-45.  *  See  page  324. 

5  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  87.  «  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Hen.  VI.  file  iii. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  33.        '  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  277. 

»  Ewart  Park  MSS.       Cf.  Akeld  Title  Deeds — Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  411.  where  the 
purchase  money  is  given  as  /2,40o. 

'»  Letter  of  Samuel  Kettilby  to  Mr.  Robert  Paul,  Customs  House,  London,  April  15th,  1737;    Ewart 
Park  MSS.  .  .      1  j     .     /j/ 

"  Akeld  Title  Deeds  ut  supra  p.  412.  12  m^  p   ^^-^ 


history  till  quite  modern  times.  The  first  holder  thereof  was  probably 
Thomas  Haggerston,  mentioned  in  1291/  and  it  was  doubtless  his  heir, 
who  as  Philip  Haggerston  together  with  his  wife  Mary  and  Robert,  son 
of  the  said  Mary,  levied  a  fine  whereby  William  of  Goswick  and  Constance 
his  wife  settled  a  messuage  and  one  carucate  of  land  in  Akeld  on  them 
jointly  with  remainder  to  the  heirs  of  Robert.'-  Doubtless  this  Robert 
took  the  name  of  Haggerston,  and  was  the  ancestor  of  Robert  Haggers- 
ton, who  in  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century  held  a  fourth  part  of 
the  vills  of  Akeld,  Coupland  and  Yeavering  of  the  barony  of  Muschamp 
for  a  quarter  of  a  knight's  fee,^  and  who  is  also  mentioned  as  a  land- 
owner in  the  township  in  a  deed  of  1349. ■*  By  the  second  quarter  of 
the  following  century  this  fourth  part,  so  far  as  Akeld  was  concerned, 
had  become  the  property  of  Robert  Houp^-n,  and  was  held  for  one  fifth 
of  a  knight's  fee."  Though  we  cannot  identify  it  with  absolute  certainty, 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  property  in  the  township, 
owned  by  the  Wallis  family  throughout  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries,  was  this  same  fourth  part.  The  first  member  of  this  family  to 
be  found  connected  with  Akeld  was  a  certain  James  Wallis  of  Akeld, 
who  married  Eleanor,  daughter  of  Jasper  Bradford,  and  must  have 
flourished  about  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.^  One  Gilbert 
Wallis  was  bailiff  of  Akeld  in  1551,^  and  was  still  living  at  Akeld  in 
1563.^  A  William  Wallis  of  Akeld  b}*  his  will,  dated  September  ist, 
1588,  left  all  his  inheritance  within  the  fields  of  Akeld  to  his  eldest 
son  William  and  his  heirs  male,  with  successi\'e  remainder  to  his  sons 
Robert,  Thomas,  Oswald,  Gilbert  and  James. ^  No  more  is  heard  of 
the  family  till  1669,  when  James  Wallis  of  Coupland,  mortgaged  'three 
several  messuages,  farmholds,  &c.  in  Akeld,  now  or  late  in  the  occupa- 
tion of  John  Wilson,  John  Hall,  James  Carr  and  Richard  Mowfitt, '  to 
Edward   CoUingwood  of  Newcastle-upon-T^-ne,^"  and  twenty   years  later, 

'  See  page  230. 

-  Pedes  Finium,  33  Edw.  I.  No.  81 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  vi.  pp.  191-192;  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  153, 
m.  gi — Ibid.  vol.  xxix.  p.  441. 

'  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  6j.  *  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  2.  '  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  87. 

"  Northern  Visitations,  pp.  128-129.  John  Wallis  was  in  charge  of  Akeld  tower  in  1522.  Letters  and 
Papers  oj  Hen.  VIII,  vol.  iii.  part  ii.  p.  852. 

'  Leges  Marchiarium,  p.  337.  "  Coupland  Deeds — Arch.  Aeliana,  vol.  xxv.  p.  175. 

9  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  C>in.  He  had  also  five  daughters  Elspeth,  Dorothy.  Isabel,  Jane 
and  Agnes.     His  wife's  name  was  Isabel. 

'»  Coupland  and  .\keld  Title  Deeds — Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  409. 


the  same,   or  another,  James  Walhs  raised   another  loan   on   the   estate.' 
By   1693   James  WalHs   of   Knaresdale,    an   infant,   held   it.^      Finally   in 
1713   Ralph  Wallis  of   Knaresdale  sold  his  property  in   the  township  for 
;^2,i5o  to  John  Ogle  of  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,   who  bought  it  on  behalf 
of    his  son    Chaloner    Ogle.^     The    fact    that    the    fields    had    not    been 
enclosed   caused   considerable   trouble    to    the    two   proprietors   in    Akeld, 
for  the  various  parcels  of  lands  belonging  to  them  lay  'intermixt  and  in 
common,    which    is    not    only    a    great    discouragement    and    bar    to    the 
improvement    of   them,    but    as    the   tenants    are   continuall}'    trespassing 
upon  each  other,   the  produce  of  the  crops  of  hay  and  corn  are  greatly 
lessened,     and     thereby     the     tenants'     stocks     reduced     to     their     great 
impoverishment,  who  being  also  many  in  number  on  so  small  an  estate, 
they   are   all   in   low   and   mean   circumstances.'     An   attempt   to   collect 
the  scattered  strips  into  two  compact  holdings  was  made  by  Sir  Chaloner 
Ogle  when  he  first  acquired  his  quarter  of  the  manor,*  but  it  was  only 
in    1 741    that    he    came    to    an    agreement    with    Samuel    Kettilby     with 
regard  to  their  'intertwined  lands. '^      He  left  all  his  estate  to  his  widow, 
Isabel,^   from   whom   it  passed  to   the   very   Rev.   Newton  Ogle,   dean  of 
Winchester,'    whose    son    Nathaniel    succeeded    in    1804,    and   two    years 
later  sold  it  to  Thomas  Bates  of  Brunton.^     The  latter's  only  sister  and 
heir  apparent  was  the  mother  of  Matthew  Culley,  who  succeeded  to  the 
property  in  1830,   and  thus  the  whole  manor  had  come  into  his  hands. 
Various  Holdings. — There  are  a  few  references  to  small  freeholders 
in   Akeld   outside   the   manor.     The   first   of  these   is  found   mentioned   in 
1349,  when  Adam  Davidman  of  Akeld  gave  to  Walter  of  Hakeford  and 
his  heirs  one  toft  and  one  acre  of  land  with  a  fourth  part  of  one  rood 
of  land  in  the  peat-moss  in  the  vill  and  territories  of  Akeld  and  Akel- 
strother.     The  toft  lay  on  the  eastern    side  of  the  township  between  the 
toft    of    dominus    William    Heron    on    the    north    and    that    of    Alan   of 

'  Coupland  and  Akeld  Title  Deeds  —  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xi.  p.  410 

^  Ibid.  p.  410.     One  of  the  mortgagees  was  Susanna  Bland  of  Newcastle,  widow.      It  is  significant  that 
the  Bland  family  held  a  small  freehold  in  Akeld  till  about  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

3  Ibid.  p.  411. 

'  Letters  of  Mr.  Samuel  Kettilby,  August  Sth,  1734,  April  8th,  1737 — Ewart  Park  MSS. 
'-  Akeld  Title  Deeds — Berwickshire  Naturalists  Club,  vol.  xi,  p,  412. 

"  Will  dated  April  loth,  1739.     Proved  September  3rd,  1750,     Ogle  and  Baikal,  app.  No.  560. 
"  Kirkley  Deeds — Ogle  and  Bothal,  App.  Nos.  688,  692. 

»  Died  at  Coupland  Castle  June,  1830,  aged  67.     A  tablet  to  his  memory,  erected  by  his  niece  Elizabeth 
Robinson,  is  in  Kirknewton  Church. 


Bellingham  on  the  south.  Half  the  acre  lay  on  le  Milnefeld  between 
the  land  of  William  Heron  and  that  of  Robert  Haggerston,  the  other 
half  in  three  butts  near  the  Glen,  one  between  William  Heron's  land 
and  'le  Smithland,'  one  between  the  land  of  Allan  of  Bellingham  and 
that  of  David  Grey,  the  river  running  through  the  midst  of  it,  and  the 
third  bounded  on  both  sides  by  the  lands  of  David  Grey.^  This  is  the 
only  mention  of  the  Herons  in  connection  with  the  township  ;  Alan  of 
Bellingham  may  have  been  a  descendant  of  the  Robert  of  Bellingham 
mentioned  in  1291  ;  of  David  Grey  we  know  nothing  beyond  this 
allusion,  but  a  'William  Grey  of  Akeld,  gent.'  is  recorded  among  the 
freeholders  of  the  county  in  1628.2  In  the  second  half  of  the  fifteenth 
century  there  are  two  allusions  to  the  Manners  family.  In  1452  William 
Lelay  leased  for  thirty  years  to  Robert  Manners,  lord  of  Etal,  his 
nearest  maternal  relative,  'i  cotaige  within  the  towne  and  feld  of  Akeld,' 
and  at  the  same  time  gave  him  the  first  option  of  purchase  if  the  estate 
should  be  alienated.^  Exactly  forty  years  later  Gilbert  Manners,  one  of 
the  ushers  of  the  king's  chamber,  and  probably  younger  brother  of  the 
Robert  Manners  of  Etal  who  died  in  1495,  received  a  grant  from  the 
crown,  during  pleasure,  of  a  parcel  of  land  in  Akeld  called  'Saint 
Andrewe  land'  valued  at  3s.  yearly.*  In  the  sixteenth  century  John 
Baxter  and  his  wife  Margaret  owned  lands  in  the  township,  which  were 
the  subject  of  a  fine  in  1589,^  when  also  there  is  mention  of  glebe 
lands  there  held  by  Thomas  Eorster  of  Adderstone.^ 

The  Chapel. — There  seems  to  have  been  a  chapel  in  Akeld  in  quite 
early  days,  certainly  by  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  centur}-.  While 
the  manor  was  still  owned  by  the  famil}'  which  took  its  name  from  the 
place,  an  endowment  was  provided  by  Robert  of  Akeld,  who  gave  two 
bovates  of  land,  held  by  Adam  Despenser,  and  another  six  acres  of  land 
and  two  of  meadow,  lying  next  to  the  path  leading  to  the  mill,  to  the 
canons  of  Kirkham.'^     It  was  probably  in  return  for  this  gift  that  the  prior 

1  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  2. 

=  Freeholders  of  Northumberland,  1628 — Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  ii.  p.  321.  This  may  of  course  be  a 
mistake  for  Lord  Grey  who  then  owned  three  parts  of  the  manor  and  whose  name  was  William. 

'  Belvoir  Deeds,  drawer  21.  ■■  Cal.  oj  Patent  Rolls,  1485-1494,  p.  379. 

*  Feet  of  Fines,  sixteenth  century,  pp.  56-57.  "  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  167. 

'  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  84.  No  statement  as  to  the  endowment  of  the  chapel  is  made,  but  tliis  and 
the  following  documents  in  the  Cartulary  are  headed  'Cartae  de  Terra  Kcclesiae  de  .\kyKI.'  .\l  a  later  date 
William  of  Akeld,  probably  the  man  who  was  living  in  1255,  came  to  an  agreement  witli  the  canons  as  to 
the  rights  of  common  in  wood  and  field  pertaining  to  this  holding.     Ibid. 


and  convent  gave  licence  to  Robert  of  Akeld,  his  heirs  and  his  household, 
to  have  a  chantry  in  the  chapel  of  Akeld, ^  provided  that  they  attended 
the  parish  church  of  Kirknewton  on  the  vigil  of  Christmas,  Epiphany,  Palm 
Sunday,  Good  Frida}-,  the  vigil  of  Easter  Day  and  Easter  Day  itself,  on 
all  Rogation  Days,  Ascension  Day  and  Whitsunday  and  the  Feasts  of  St. 
John  Baptist,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  All  Saints  and  all  the  festivals  of 
Our  Lady  and  of  St.  Gregor}'.  Robert  bound  himself  and  his  heirs  to 
keep  the  chapel  in  repair,  and  to  provide  all  necessar}'  books  and 
vestments  so  long  as  they  wished  to  have  a  chantry  there,  and  in  their 
turn  the  canons  undertook  to  pay  los.  a  year  to  Robert  and  his  heirs 
so   long   as   the   latter   maintained   the   chapel   and   chantry. ^ 

The  land  thus  given  to  Kirkham  passed  at  the  dissolution  of  the 
religious  houses  to  the  crown. ^  Such  was  not  the  fate  of  another 
portion  of  the  endowment  of  the  chapel,  for  in  1386  the  king  granted 
for  life  to  John,  son  of  John  Creswell,  in  part  payment  of  a  debt,  '  a 
messuage  and  twenty-four  acres  of  land  in  Akild  A\'hich  the  lady  of 
Akild  once  gave  for  a  chaplain  to  celebrate  divine  service  three  days 
a  week  in  the  chapel  there.'*  It  is  tempting  to  identify  this  bene- 
factress with  the  Lady  Lucy  who  was  living  in  the  township  in  1296,'' 
but  how  this  property  came  into  the  hands  of  the  crown  remains  a 
mystery.  At  any  rate  it  suggests  that  the  chapel  may  have  fallen  into 
disuse  by  1386,  though  as  recently  as  1359,  when  John  and  Joan  Coup- 
land  were  granted  the  Prendergest  inheritance,  this  had  included  the 
fourth  part  of  the  advowson  of  the  chapel  of  Akeld.  ^  It  was 
probably  the  endowment  of  this  chapel  which  Mr.  Kettilby,  owner  of 
three  parts  of  the  manor,  alludes  to  in  a  letter  of  1737  as  'about  54 
acres  of  land  called  churchland, '  which  was  a  separate  and  distinct 
estate  carved  out  of  the  fourth  part  of  the  manor,  then  held  by  Sir 
Chaloner  Ogle,  and  free  from  the  payment  of  all  tithes.  It  was  then 
the  property  of  Mr.  Kettilby.'' 

'  The  '  cantaria  '   here  mentioned  probably  refers   to   the   ordinary  services,  and  it  seems  as  though 
this  was  the  foundation  charter  of  the  chapel  itself. 

-  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  S4.  '  Ministers  Accounts,  7-8  Eliz. — Watcrford  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  63. 

■■  Cal.  oj  Patent  Rolls.  1385-1389,  p.  287.  '  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fols.  109-110. 

«  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1358-1361,  pp.  233-234. 

'  Letter  of  Samuel  Kettilby,  April  8th,  1737 — Ewart  I'ark  MSS.       It  is  to  be  noted  that  .54  acres  of  land 
would  correspond  very  accurately  with  the  tw-o  bovates  and  six  acres  of  Robert  of  Akeld's  gift  to  Ivirkham. 


Of   the    priests   who   served    this  chapel   we    know   next    to   nothing. 
A  \\'alter  'le  Chapellein'  of  Akeld  is  mentioned  in  1279/  ^"d  a  Robert 
'clerk'  of  Akeld  in  1287.2     In  1296  John,  the  chaplain,  was  assessed  for 
subsidy    on    goods    valued    at    £1  7s.    6d.,  while    somewhat    surprisingh' 
Thomas,   the  servant  of  the  chaplain,    had  goods  valued  at  £3   8s.    lod.-'' 

Fig.   II. — Interior  of   Basement,   Akeld   Tower. 

The  site  too  cannot  be  located  with  certainty,  though  it  was  probably 
near  the  old  graveyard  about  which  Archdeacon  Singleton  wrote  in  1828, 
'there  is  a  tradition  of  a  parochial  chapelyard  at  Akeld,  but  it  seems 
now  to  be  alienated,  and  I  was  told  the  high  road  to  W'ooler  passed 
through   it.*     In    1889    this   graveyard   was   enclosed   on    three   sides   but 

'  Northumberland  Assize  Rolls,  (Surtees  Soc.)  p.  235. 

-  Stevenson,  ScotUsh  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  34.  '  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fols.  109-110. 

'  .\rchdeacon  Singleton's  Visitation,  1828 — Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xvii.  p.  255. 


was  open  to  the  road,^  and  it  still  exists,  though  now  it  is  entirely  shut 
in.  From  tlie  existence  of  a  'Lady's  Close'  and  'Lady's  Well'  in  tlie 
near  neighbourhood  it  has  been  thought  that  the  chapel  may  have  been 
dedicated  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,-  and  the  obligation  to  attend  the 
mother  church  on  all  festivals  of  Our  Lady,  supports  the  suggestion. 
On  the  other  hand  the  possession  by  the  crown  of  a  parcel  of  land 
called  'Saint  Andrewe  land'  in  the  township^  might,  in  view  of  other 
portions  of  the  endowment  having  found  their  way  into  the  same  hands, 
suggest  an  alternative  theory. 

The  Tower. — On  the  northern  slope  of  Akeld  Hill,  among  the  present 
day  farm  buildings,  there  is  incorporated  in  a  two-storied  structure  the 
vaulted  basement  of  the  '  lytle  fortelett  or  castle  house  without  a 
barmekyn' mentioned  in  the  border  survey  of  1541.*  It  was  standing  as 
early  as  1522,  when  Lord  Dacre  proposed  to  place  ten  men  there  under 
John  Wallis  for  the  defence  of  the  border.'^  The  building  on  the  exterior 
measures  62  feet  north  to  south,  and  24  feet  6  inches  east  to  west,  and  16 
feet  wide  on  the  interior.  The  ancient  portion  comprises  a  rude  semi- 
circular vaulted  basement,  entered  on  the  west  side  by  a  square-headed  door 
with  a  relieving  arch  over,  and  on  the  interior  a  rough  flat  arch.^  In  the 
south  jamb  is  a  hole  7  inches  square  for  the  bar  securing  the  door.  At 
either  end  of  the  chamber  is  an  original  square  loop  for  light  and  air. 
There  is  no  indication  of  a  staircase  to  the  upper  floor.  The  modern 
granary  which  occupies  the  upper  floor  is  approached  by  an  external  stair 
at  the  south  end.  The  structure  throughout  is  built  of  very  roughly  hewn 
stone,  and  the  lower  courses  of  masonry  are  formed  with  large  undressed 

'  Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xiii.  pp.  66-67. 

-  Arch.  Aeliana,  3rd  series,  vol.  ix.  p.  40.  ^  Cal.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1485-1494,  p.  379. 

*  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  33. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VHI.,  vol.  iii,  part  ii,  p.  852.  "  See  fig.   11,  page  239. 



The  farm  of  Old  Yeavering^  is  now  the  only  inhabited  spot  in  the 
township  of  that  name,^  which  mainly  consists  of  the  rugged  hill  known  as 
Yeavering  Bell,  whereon  one  of  the  finest  prehistoric  camps  in  Northumber- 
land is  situated.  Many  consider  that  this  is  '  Adgefrin, '  where  Edwin  and  his 
consort  Ethelburga  had  their  country  seat,  and  where  they  were  visited  by 
Paulinus,  who  for  thirty-six  days  made  it  the  centre  of  a  missionary 
campaign,  during  which  he  baptized  his  converts  in  the  river  Glen.  The 
following  kings  abandoned  this  dwelling  and  built  another  at  a  place 
called  'Melmin.'^ 

Descent  of  the  Manor. — The  manorial  history  of  the  township  down  to 
the  fifteenth  century  is  identical  with  that  of  Akeld,  being  held  together  with 
that  township  and  Coupland  for  one  knight's  fee  of  the  barony  of  Muschamp.* 
Of  details  of  the  lands  we  have  none,  save  that  the  Prendergest  quarter 
of  the  'hamlet,'  as  it  is  called,  is  described  in  1279  as  one  messuage 
and  40  acres  of  land,^  and  in  1329  as  a  messuage  26  acres  of 
arable  land  and  a  husbandland.^  It  possessed  but  few  inhabitants, 
only  six  being  assessed  for  the  subsidy  of  1296,  the  richest  having 
goods  to  the  value  of  £2  os.  4d.  and  the  total  wealth  in  moveables  only 
coming  to  £S  3s.  id.'  The  first  indication,  that  the  history  of  Yeavering 
had  diverged  from  that  of  Akeld,  is  found  on  the  advent  of  the  Greys 
at  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century.  Sir  Thomas  Grey,  who  died  in 
1400,  held  a  husbandland  there,  wasted  by  the  Scots,^  and  in  the  records 
of  the  Feudal  Aid  of  1428  Sir  Ralph  Grey  is  credited  with  three  parts 
of    the    vill,    but    nothing    is    recorded    with    regard    to    the   fourth  part, 

'  The  Census  returns  are  :    iSoi,  68  ;    1811,59;    1821,64;     1831,68;    1841,68;    1851,29;    1861,51 
1871,  55  ;    i8Si,  44  ;    1891,  49  ;    1901,  5  ;    1911,  5.     The  tow-nship  comprises  866065  acres. 

-  Earlier  Ad  gejrin  (Bede),  trt  gefrin  (O.E.  Bede),  Yever.  Yverne,  Yeure,  Yevere,  Yetern,  Yeverin,  Yever- 
inglon.  Clearly  a  pre-English  name.  Bede's  forms  are  interesting  examples  of  the  old  idiom  whereby  you 
would  say  not  the  name  of  my  home  is  Yeavering,'  but  'the  name  of  my  home  is  .\t- Yeavering,"  so  firmly 
was  the  preposition  attached  to  the  noun.     The  local  pronunciation  is  Yivrin — ing  is  a  modern  barbarism. 

'  Venerahilis  Baedae  Opera  Historica,  ed.  C.  Plummer  (Oxford,  1896),  pp.  114-115.  Mclmin  has  been 
identified  witli  Milfiold,  which  is  impossible,  as  this  is  not  an  ancient  name.  It  may  perhaps  refer  to 

*  Testa  de  \evill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  211. 

'  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  7-9  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  60-61. 

'  Cat.  of  Inq.  Miscellaneous,  vol.  ii.  p.  261.  '  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fol.  loi. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  2  Hen.  IV.  No.  50 — Scalacronica,  Proofs  and  Illustrations,  p.  Ixi. 

Vol.  XI.  31 


which  had  once  belonged  to  the  Haggerston  family. *  Sir  Ralph  Grey 
died  in  1443  seised  of  'the  township  of  Yevern  worth  yearly  20s./  then 
held  of  the  manor  of  Wooler  b}^  socage, ^  which  probably  means  that 
the  Greys  had  acquired  the  fourth  part,  as  there  is  no  mention  of  any 
other  landowners  in  the  township  throughout  the  sixteenth  century.  In 
1541  there  were  eight  husbandlands  there  all  owned  by  Ralph  Grey  of 
Chillingham,^  and  in  1568  the  family  is  said  to  have  held  the  vill  in 
chief.*  Dame  Isabel,  widow  of  Sir  Ralph  Grey  of  Chillingham,  who 
describes  herself  as  of  Ogle  Castle,  evidently  held  Yeavering  as  part  of 
her  dower,  for  in  the  inventory  of  her  goods,  taken  in  1581,  there  is  the 
entry  'The  goods  at  Yeveringe — Two  score  and  seaven  ewes  j£  xvi. 
weathers  40s.  xvi.  hoggs  21s.  xxxiii.  thrave  of  wheat  and  rye  35s. 
xxxiii.  thraves  of  bere  50s.  oats  xxx.  thraves  i8s.  8d.'^  Towards  the 
close  of  the  century  several  members  of  the  Storey  family  were  living 
in  the  township,  and  in  his  will  dated  December  20th,  1589,  Sir  Thomas 
Grey  of  Chillingham  left  a  life  interest  to  John  Storey  and  his  wife  in 
'the  fyrmett  he  hathe  in  Yeavering,'  and  to  his  son  Fergus  for  21  years 
a  tenement  there,  now  in  the  occupation  of  his  uncle  Robert  Storey,  of 
the  yearly  rent  of  26s.  8d.^  In  1663  Lord  Grey  was  returned  as  the 
sole  owner,   the  rental  value  of  the  estate  being  £80.'' 

After  the  death  of  Ford,  Lord  Grey,  in  1701  Yeavering  went  with 
the  barony  to  his  brother  Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  who  died  in  1706.  In 
pursuance  of  the  latter's  will  and  by  virtue  of  a  decree  of  the  court  of 
chancery  it  was  offered  for  sale  in  1733,  and  was  bought  by  'a  gentle- 
man in  this  neighbourhood,'  evidently  as  a  speculation,  as  he  at  once 
announced  that  he  was  prepared  to  resell  at  ;^2,200,  being  £200  more 
than  he  had  given  for  the  property.  In  1734  he  found  a  purchaser  in 
Mr.  Robert  Paul  of  the  Customs  House,  London,^  whose  son  Robert 
St.  Paul  sold  the  estate  in  1777  to  Samuel  Phipps.  The  last  named 
devised  it  by  will,  together  with  Barmoor,  to  Francis  Hurt,  who  later 
assumed   the   name   of   Sitwell,    and   Major   F.    H.    M.    Sitwell,    the   great 

»  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  87.  ^  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  P.M.,  Hen.   VI.  File  iii. 

''  Survey  of  the  Border,  1.541 — Border  Holds,  p.  33. 

*  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixiii. 

'  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  53.     A  thrave  consists  of  24  sheaves  or  four  shocks  of  corn.     'Bere' 
means  barley. 

•  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  175.  '  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  279. 
'  Ewart  Park  MSS. 



grandson  of  Francis  Hurt  Sitwell,  sold  it  in  1867  to  Henry  Thomas 
Morton  of  Biddick  Hall,  Fence  Houses,  county  Durham,  who  in  turn 
sold  it  to  George  Frederick  D'Arcy,  second  earl  of  Durham.  The  last 
named  died  in  1879,  having  by  his  will  devised  his  estates  in  North- 
umberland to  his  son,  the  Hon.  F.  W.  Lambton,  who  in  1884  sold 
Yeavering  back  to  Mr.  Morton.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  latter's  will,  the 
property  passed  on  his  death  to  the  present  owner,  his  cousin  Thomas 
Knight  Culley,  a  younger  brother  of  the  late  Very  Rev.  Monsignor  Culley 
of  Coupland  Castle.^ 


Though  to-day  a  township  within  the  parish  of  Kirknewton, 
Milfield  has  not  enjoyed  this  position  from  early  times.-  It  finds  no 
mention  in  any  record  earlier  than  the  sixteenth  century,  and  must 
have  formed  part  of  one  or  more  of  the  neighbouring  \-ills  in  early  days. 
Its  southern  boundaries  are  suspiciously  straight,  so  that  it  may  have 
belonged  in  part  to  Lanton  and  Coupland,  and  some  of  it  undoubtedly 
once  formed  part  of  Howtel  Common.^  It  springs  into  notice  at  the 
same  time  as  its  neighbour  Flodden,  for  it  is  first  mentioned  in  the 
year  before  Flodden  Field  as  the  site  of  a  considerable  skirmish  between 
Scots  and  English.  In  August,  1512,  Alexander,  Lord  Home,  on 
plundering  bent,  crossed  the  border  with  about  3,000  horse  according  to 
Scottish  accounts,  or  seven  or  eight  thousand,  which  is  the  English 
version.  On  their  return  they  fell  into  an  ambush  carefully  laid  for 
them  in  'a  brome  felde  called  Mylfeld'  by  Sir  William  Bulmer  with  a 
hastily  levied  force  of  something  under  a  thousand  men.'*  Despite  their 
stout  resistance,  a  small  force  of  professional  archers  turned  the  struggle 
in  favour  of  the  English,  and  many  of  the  Scots  were  slain,  five  or  six 
hundred  according  to  the  English  account,  and  two  or  three  hundred 
more  taken  prisoner,  including  George  Home,  Lord  Home's  brother.     The 

'  Yeavering  Deeds. 

-  The  Census  returns  are  ;  1801,193;  1811,168;  1821,259;  1831,262;  1841,225;  1851,246;  iS6i, 
225:    1871,222;    1881,176;    1891,172;    1901,131;    igii.  124.     The  township  comprises  1540-952  acres.' 

'  There  is  mention  of  '  Ic  Milnefeld'  as  situated  in  .Mceld  and  .-Vkeld  Strother  in  1349  {Bclvoir  Deeds. 
drawer  1),  but  .MccId  touches  the  modern  Milfield  at  no  point.  Still  there  is  a  possibility  that  MilAeld  was 
known  in  the  middle  ages  as  .\kcld  Strother  of  which  there  is  no  other  mention. 

'  The  Scottish  chronicler  gives  the  number  as  300. 


Scots  maintained  that  it  was  only  their  rearguard  that  was  thus  partially 
annihilated,  and  that  the  booty,  which  had  gone  before,  remained  in  their 
hands,  but  the  English  report  had  it  that  '  the  pray  was  reckned  beside 
a  great  number  of  geldings.'  'This,'  writes  the  southern  chronicler, 
'was  the  fyrst  open  token  of  warre  shewed  by  the  Scottes,  whiche  call 
this  journey  the  yll  Roade.'^  Despite  this  disaster,  the  Scots  three 
years  later  '  to  the  nomber  of  400  men  came  into  England  to  a  place 
called  Corkleche  upon  Mylnefield,"-  which  they  used  as  their  head- 
quarters from  which  to  send  forays,  the  most  serious  one  being  to 
Holburn.  The  English  borderers,  pursuing  the  returning  forayers,  were 
trapped  by  the  Scottish  main  force  at  Millield,  and  many  of  them  were 
carried  off  prisoners  to  Scotland.^  On  the  other  hand  Milfield  was  used 
in  1523  by  the  English  borderers  as  a  gathering  place  from  which  to 
make  a  raid  into  Scotland.*  Only  on  one  other  occasion  did  the  hamlet 
play  a  part  in  militar}'  operations,  when  the  Scottish  army  invaded 
England  in  1640.  In  order  to  avoid  Berwick,  it  crossed  the  Tweed  at 
Cornhill,  and  making  its  way  up  the  broad  valley  of  the  Till,  lay  on 
August   2ist,   its  first  night   on   English   soil,   at   Milfield.^ 

Descent  of  the  Property. — It  is  in  the  year  1541  that  we  get  the  first 
indication  as  to  the  owner  of  Milfield,  when  a  survey  of  that  year  records :  'The 
towneshippe  of  Mylnefelde  conteyneth  vi.  husband  lands  plenyshed  without 
any  fortresse  or  barmekyn  and  ys  of  th'inherytaunce  of  a  wedowe  late  the 
wyfe  of  Mychaell  Muschiens.'"  This  lady  had  died  by  1658,  when 
'Oswald  Muschiens'  held  the  vill  in  capite."'  The  whole  township  did 
not  belong  to  this  branch  of  the  Muschamp  family,  since  in  his  will 
made  in  1542  Thomas  Manners,  first  earl  of  Rutland,  alludes  to  his 
property  there. ^  In  1591  John  Muschamp  held  lands  and  tenements  in 
Milfield   of   Sir   Thomas   Grey,    as   of  the   manor  of   Wark,^   and   he   was 

'  Hall,  p.  556  ;   Buchanan,  Book  xiii.  vol.  ii.  p.  131. 

^  This  is  doubtless  Corkledge,  a  plantation  beside  the  high  road.     It  now  lies  in  Coupland. 
'October  12th,  1515.     Relation  of  the  Misdeeds  of  the  Scots  dated  March  15th,   1516 — Raine.  North 
Durham,  p.  i.x. ;  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VlII .  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  470. 

*  Despatch  from  Surrey  to  the  king,  May  21st,  1523 — Raine.  North  Durham,  p.  x. 
'  Cal.  of  Stale  Papers,  Domestic,  1640,  pp.  615-616,  621. 

•  Survey  of  the  Border,   1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  34. 

'  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  Ixx.     The  place  is  spelt  '.Mytfield'  but  the  identifi- 
cation seems  fairly  certain. 

"  North  Country  Wills,  vol.  i.  p.  1S7.  »  Inq.  p.m.  a  Eliz.,  Thomas  Grey,  kt.— Lambert  .MS. 


probably  John  Muschamp  of  Lyham  Hall,  whose  wife  Barbara  was 
daughter  of  Eleanor  Collingwood,  widow  of  one  of  the  Collingwoods  of 
Etal.^  This  property  was  Milfield  Hill,  which  Ralph  Muschamp  in  1616 
leased  to  Thomas  Unthank,  who  later  held  a  mortgage  on  it.  This 
Ralph  Muschamp  had  a  son  and  heir  Robert,  by  his  wife  Eleanor,  but 
in  1653  he  sold  Milfield  Hill  to  WiUiam  Lord  Grey  of  Wark.^  In  1584, 
too,  John  Collingwood,  who  also  held  land  in  Lanton  and  Branxton, 
was  part  owner  of  the  vill,-'^  and  another  share  is  mentioned  in  1608  as 
belonging  to  Thomas  Burrell  of  Milfield.*  This  Thomas  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  Robert,^  who  in  1618  bought  for  £240  certain  messuages, 
lands,  &c.,  in  the  township  from  Henry  Collingwood  of  Etal,  Margaret 
his  wife  and  George  Collingwood  of  Etal,  his  brother.^  In  1628,  and  again 
in  1638,  among  Northumberland  freeholders  appears  the  name  of  Robert 
Burrell  of  Milfield."  In  the  Rate  Book  of  1663,  Lord  Grey  was  assessed 
on  a  rental  of  £80  and  Mr.  George  Grey  on  one  of  £30.^  The  latter 
was  the  husband  of  Catherine,  widow  of  Thomas  Burrell,  whose  son  Ralph 
succeeded,  and  in  1678  sued  David  Wake,  Catherine's  third  husband,  for 
an  account  of  his  property.^  The  Burrell  portion  was  Milfield  Ninths, 
which  was  sold  in  1719  by  Thomas  Burrell  of  Broompark  to  Robert  Blake 
of  Twizel  for  ;^430,^''  and  in  1722  James  Wilson  of  Coupland  and  Robert  Blake 
of  Twizel  voted  for  the  township,  being  replaced  by  John  Ord  of  Morpeth 
and  James  Wilson  of  Milfield  in  1748.^^  According  to  the  court  rolls  of 
Wark,  Sir  Henry  Grey,  as  heir  to  Ralph,  Lord  Grey,  to  whom  this 
portion  of  the  Tankerville  inheritance  descended,  Francis  Blake  and 
James  Wilson  held  lands  in  Milfield  of  that  manor  in  1738  and  1759, 
but  in   1764  John  Ord  took  the  place  of  Wilson, ^^  though  it  is  evident 

1  Will  of  Eleanor  Collingwood,  dated  November  3rd,  1597 — Rainc,  Teslamenta,  vol.  ii.  p.  83. 
-  Milfield  Muniments.  '  Cal.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  15. 

*  Moneys  levied  at  Northumberland  Assize  nth  .\ugust,  6  James  I. — Watcrford  Documents,  vol.  i.  pp. 
57.  58. 

'  Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  i.  p.  53.     He  left  his  second  son  John  his  property  in  Slateraw  in    Ford. 

'  Newcastle  Public  Library,  Coleman  Deeds,  iii.  22.  By  his  will  dated  9th  November,  1603,  Henry 
Collingwood  of  Old  Etal  left  to  his  son  George  all  his  lands  in  Milfield.  He  mentions  his  wife  Margaret. 
(Kaine,  Teslamenta,  vol.  i.  p.  41.)  It  seems  as  though  he  was  still  living  in  lOiS,  and  that  George 
Collingwood  of  the  conveyance  was  his  son  not  his  brother. 

'  Freeholders  of  Northumberland,  1628,  1638 — Arch.  Aeliana,  O.S.  vol.  ii.  pp.  ^ii,  32^.  Thomas  Unthank 
of  Milfield  took  a  mortgage  on  a  portion  of  the  Ford  estate  in  1616.     Lord  Joicey's  Deeds,  vol.  i.  p.  55. 

»  Book  of  Rates,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  448,  Nos.  116,  132  ;  bundle  445,  No.  117.  See  X.C.H. 
vol.  vii.  p.  223,  where  a  pedigree  of  the  family  will  be  found. 

i»  Milfield  Muniments.  "  Xorthumberland  Poll  Book.  '-  Lambert  MS. 


tiom  the  Poll  Book  that  both  these  last  held  lands  in  the  township  in 
1748.  When  in  1789  Milfield,  otherwise  Lanton,  Common  was  enclosed, 
Sir  Henry  Grey  received  by  far  the  largest  allotment,  amounting  to 
246  acres  in  respect  of  Milfield  Hill,  William  Ord  held  Milfield  Demesne 
and  other  lands,  but  received  therefor  only  87  acres,  while  Sir  Francis 
Blake  with  42  acres  in  respect  of  Milfield  Ninths  had  the  smallest 
allotment.^  A  portion  of  this  last  property,  now  known  as  the  Manors, 
was  sold  in  1877  with  Crookham,  to  which  it  lies  adjacent,  by  Six 
Francis  Douglas  Blake  to  the  late  earl  of  Durham,  who  bequeathed  it 
to   his   second   son,    the   Hon.    F.    W.  Lambton.^ 

The  rest  of  the  township  later  became  the  property  of  George  Annett 
Grey,  whose  grandfather  George  Grey  had  owned  Sandy  house.  ^  When 
this  latter  came  to  Milfield,  'the  plain  was  still  a  forest  of  wild  broom. 
He  took  his  axe  and,  like  a  backwood  settler,  cut  away  the  broom  and 
cleared  for  himself  a  space  on  which  to  begin  his  farming  functions.'* 
He  farmed  Milfield  Hill,  and  on  his  death  in  1793  his  widow  carried  on 
his  work,  as  his  son  John  was  only  eight  years  old.  John  Grey  grew  up 
to  manhood  under  the  kindly  inspiration  of  his  neighbour  George  Culley, 
and  he  soon  became  a  well  known  figure  in  the  agricultural  life  of 
Northumberland.  He  was  a  great  reformer,  and  championed  such  causes 
as  parliamentary  reform  and  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and,  much  to 
the  surprise  and  horror  of  his  friends  and  associates,  was  a  constant 
advocate  of  the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws.  In  1833  he  was  appointed 
to  take  charge  of  the  Greenwich  Hospital  estates,  and  he  moved  to 
Dilston.  He  never  ceased  to  contribute  largely  to  the  agricultural 
literature  of  the  time,  working  always  on  the  principle  that  if  agri- 
culture was  ever  to  rank  with  the  other  great  sciences,  'the  culture  of 
the  mind  must  precede  that  of  the  land.'^  His  son  George  Annett  Grey 
bought  Milfield  Hill,  of  which  he  was  already  tenant,  from  Earl  Grey  in 
1850,^  Milfield  Demesne  from  Charles  William  Orde  in  1862,^  and 
Milfield  Ninths  from  Sir  Francis  Blake  in  1877.  The  present  owner  of 
the  estate  is  his  great-grandson,  Mr.  John  Neil  Grey. 

'  Milfield  Hill  Deeds.  "-  Croohhoiise  Deeds.  »  Milfield  Hill  Deeds. 

'  Memoir  of  John  Gyey  oj  iJilston,  by  his  daughter,  Josephine  I'.utlcr  (Lundon,  1874),  p.  8. 

'"  Ibid,  passim.  «  Milfield  Hill  Deeds.  '  Milfield  Demesne  Deeds. 




Margaret  Dobson,  mar- 
ried St.  Nicholas, 
Newcastle,  23rd 
October,   1736. 

John  Grey  of  the  parish  of  LongHorsley;  after- 
wards of  Nesbit  Chapelry  in  Doddington ; 
baptised  at  Long  Horsley,  3rd  April,  1696/7  ; 
will  dated  24th  Novenaber,  1778  ;  proved 

Margaret,  daughter  of  Rdward  Grey 
of  Birgham,  her  husband's  cousin ; 

married 174^  {g)  ;   died  at 

Heton,  2ist  February,  1801,  aged 



John  Grey  of  Heton,  parish  of  Norham  ; 
purchased  lands  in  Middle  Ord  in  1788  ; 
died  2nd  October,  18 17,  aged  7i(/). 

Patience,  daughter  of  George  Anderson  of  Glanton  ;  baptised  7th 
November,  1743  (A)  ;  married  23rd  January,  1767(A)  ;  died  21st 
May,  1813,  aged  69  (/). 

G  e  o  r  g  e  =  Isabella,  dau.  of 
Anderson  John  Morrison 

Grey  of 
Ord;  died 
1852  aged 
79  (7)  • 

of  Berwick; 
married  there 
May,  1823; 
died  30th 
Nov.,  I  86  I  ; 
aged  59. 

of  He- 

I  I 

Edward     William  = 
Grey.         Grey, 

dau.     Sarah,  wife  of  John  Forster 

of       of    Gatherick ;     marriage 

Archbold  ;  bond  8th  .Mar.,  1 798  ;  died 

married  8th  Feb.,  1854,  aged  78. 
at  Corn-  Patience,  born  at  Glanton; 
hill,  19th  wife  of  John  Carr  of  Ford  ; 
July, 1 82 1.  buried  at  Kyloe. 

Mary,  wife  of  George  Purvis 
of    New    Etal ;     married 
September,  1803. 

I  I 

John  George  Grey  =  M  a  r  y, 
Grey,  of  Heton, 
died  to  whom 
West  his  uncle 
Sunni-  gave  Middle 
side.  Ord  ;   died 

25th    Aug., 

Christian  Margaret,  daughter  and  sole  heir  ;  married  24th  July,  1878,  George  Grey  Grey  of  Milfield. 

ary,     dau. 

Edward  = 

=  M  a  r  y 


e  s 


=  Jane,  daughter 

of  JohnMac- 

Grey  of 





1     of  Christopher 

Laren      of 

Blink  - 

dau.  of 


^   Jobsonof  Stur- 

Coldstream  ; 



ton      Grange ; 

captain  . .  . .; 


. , 

died  at  Wark,- 

died    I  I  th 

of  Ber- 

worth, 27  Mar. 

Jan.,  1863. 


1902,  aged  69 ; 
buried    Wood- 


George  Grey  of 
West  Ord  and 
Milfield ;  pur- 
chased lands 
in  West  Ord 
on  17... ;  died 
July,  1793. 
aged  38  (6); 
will  dated 
30th   Sept., 

1790  ;  proved 

1791  (A). 

Mary,  dau.  of 
John  Burn 
of  Berwick ; 
mar.  there 
28th  Nov., 
1782;  named 
in  her  hus- 
band's will ; 
died  at  Kelso 
Manse,  27th 
Aug.,  1827, 
aged  68  (b). 

William  = 
Grey  of 
Roslyn,   1 
Western  4^ 
A  u  s  t- 

Bell,  mar. 
1 6th  Dec, 
1779,     at 

James  Grev 
of  the 
Chirm  ;  d. 
at  Milfield, 
aged  70 ; 
bur.  8  May, 

Edward  Grey  : 
of  Morpeth, 
surgeon  ;  d. 
at  Heton; 
buried  5th 
March,  1 822, 
aged  77  (c). 

Jane  Camp- 
bell, mar. 
at  Aln- 
wick 4th 

Henry  Grey.  D.D.,  born  at  Alnwick  nth  =  Margretta,  dau. 
Feb.,  1778  ;  minister  of  Stenton,  after-  4,  of  George  Grey 
wards  of  Edinburgh ;  d.  13  Jan.,  1859.  (a). 


Margaret,  wife 
of  Thomas 
Vard  y  of 
F  e  n  t  o  n  ; 
named  in 
the  will  of 
her  brother 
George  (ft)  ; 
mar.  at  Dod- 
dington loth 
Nov.,  1780. 

John  Grey  of  Milfield 
and  of  Dilston  ; 
born  23rd  August, 
1785  (a)  ;  to  whom 
his  father  gave  his 
lands  in  West  Ord 
and  his  interest  in 
Tweed  fishings  (A)  ; 
died  22  Jan.,  1868; 
buried  Corbridge. 

Hannah  Eliza,  dau. 
of  Ralph  Annett 
of  Alnwick  ;  mar- 
ried at  Alnwick 
27th  December, 
1814  ;  died  i6th 
May,  i860;  buried 

George  Grey  of  ; 
Sandyhouse ; 
born  28th 
June,  1794 
(a)  ;  died 
W  o  o  d  c  o  t, 
Surrey,  7th 
Oct.,  1824. 

Jane,  dau.  of« 
John  Greg- 
son  of  Bel- 
married  at 
22nd  Mar., 

I    I    I 
Hannah,  born  15th  .\ug. 


died  i8th  Januarj-,  1789(6). 
Margarette,  born  6th  Jan.,   1787 

(a);  mar.   12th  Oct.,   1808(a); 

her   cousin.  Rev.  Henrj'  Grey, 

minister  of  Stenton. 
Mary  .born  8th  Nov.,  1 788  (a):  mar. 

first.   Rev.  R.  Lundie,  minister 

of    Kelso,   and    second,    Henrj" 

Duncan,  D.D..  of  Edinburgh. 



Boyd,  dau. 
of  Robert 
Neil  of 
Rosedon  ; 
mar.  5th 
Oct.,  18:59; 
died  I  8 1  h 
Nov.,  1856 

Grey   "f 
bapt.  17 
1 816  (a); 
died   20 

Jane.  dau. 
of  Henry 
mar.  15th 
April,  1858; 
died  I  8 1  h 
Aug.,  1893, 
aged  72, 
s.p.  (6). 


6  Aug. 
I  8  I  7 


died  at 
sea  in 

E  m  i  1  y,  =  Charles    Grey  =  Eliza 

d  a  u.    of 



of   Hally 


CO.    Tip- 


Grey  of  Dils- 
ton;  bapt.  9th 
Jan.,  1826(a); 
M.A.  Univ. 
Coll.  of  Dur.; 
afterwards  of 
Dublin, where 
he  died  27th 
Feb.,  1915  (/). 







John  George 
Grey,  born 
31st  March, 
1844;  mar. 
at  South 
Charlton  26 
June,  1872; 
d.  at  Biar- 
ritz 30th 
Mar.,  1879 

Anna  Maria, 
daughter  of 
George  Faw- 
cus  of  Dun- 
ston  Steads ; 
married  2nd 


George  Grey 
Grey  of  Mil- 

.  field,  born 
f)th  April, 
185 1  ;  died 
15th  Sept., 
191 5;  buried 
at     Milfield. 

Sybil  Anne. 

Annette,  wife  of Keys, 

Beatrice      Neil,      wife     of 

Algernon    J.    P.    Coke, 


I  I     I     I     I 

Christian     Other        Elizabeth  Neil,  bapt. 

Margt.,       issue,         25th  Jan,  1841  (n). 

dau.  and       died         Jane  Eliza,  bap.  13th 

heiressof      in  in-        May,  1842  (a) ;  mar. 

George      fancy.       24th     April,     1867, 

Grey    of  wife  of  Sir   Horace 

Middle  St.  Paul,  bart. ;  died 

Ord,mar.  9th  June,  1881. 

24th J ulv,  Hannah  Mary,  born 

1878.     '  5th     Nov.,      1845 ; 

mar.    2nd    August, 

1875,    Ralph    Hart 

Tweddell ;        died 

28th  Oct.,  1914  (0- 

Mary,  wife  of  George 

Grey  Rea,  of  Dod- 


I    I    I    I    I    I    I    I 

Hannah  Eliza,  bapt. 
30th  .Mav,  1819  (a); 
wife  of  William 
Morrison  of  Hong- 

Mary  .\nnc,  bapt.  nth 
.\ug.,  1820  (a)  ;  wife 
of  Edgar  Garston. 

Frances  Hardv,  bapt. 
1st  July,  1823  (a)  ; 
wife  of  Rev.  George 
H.  Smythton. 

Josephine  Elizabeth, 
bapt.  loth  May,  1828 
(a)  ;  wife  of  Rev. 
Geo.  Butler,  canon 
of  Winchester ;  died 
30th  Dec,  1906,  age 
78,  at  Wooler  (w). 

Harriet  Jane,  bapt. 
17th  May,  1.S30  (a)  ; 
wife  of  Tell  Meuri- 
coffie  of  Naples. 

Eleanor  Margaret,  bap. 
i6th  April,  1832  (a). 

Mary  Isabelle. 

Emily,  married  first, 
William  De  Pledge, 
and  second,  Jasper 

ohn  Neil 

George  Henry  = 

=  Kathleen, 

Eric  Ida  =? 


Charles  Boyd 

G  e  rva  i  s  = 


Grey   of 

Ivar     Grey 

dau .      of 

Grey,   | 


Grey,  M.C., 

M  i  n  1 0 



of    Middle 

Sir  Francis 

b  0  r  n  4/ 

dau.    of 

of  Bukaboli 



born  7th 

Ord ;  major, 

D.    Blake, 

25  Aug., 

the  Rev. 


mar.    1 1 

of      the 


R.G.A.;  born 

of     Ti  1- 


R.  Ward- 



Rev.     E. 


I  2  th  May, 

m  0  u  t  h  , 



born     3rd 

I  9  I  7  ; 



bart.;  mar. 

5    Jan., 

Mar.,  1888; 

of    Bu- 

14th  Sept., 







John  Francis,  born 
29th  Nov.,  1912. 

Robert  George, 


Hestia  Dagmar,  born 
6th  July,  191 1. 

Angela  Mary,  born 
2nd  Feb.,  1914. 

I    I 

mar  17th 
D  e  c, 

M  a  r  y, 

Lena,  born 

(a)  Kirknewton  Regisier-;. 

(fc)   Monumental  Inscriptions,  Kirknewton. 

(c)    Ford  Registers. 

{d)  Monumental  Inscriptions,  Ford. 

(e)    Tweedmouth  Register. 

if)   Monumental  Inscriptions,  Tweedmouth. 

(g)  Felton  Registers, 
(h)   Whittingham  Registers. 
(A)   Raine,  Test.  Dunelm. 
(/)   The  Times. 
( III)  Newcastle  Daily  Journal. 

Before  George  Grey  and  his  son  John  had  developed  the  possibihties  of 
the  land  for  agricultural  purposes  Milfield  Plain  had  been  used  as  a  race- 
course. '  A  gold  cup  of  sixty  guineas  value '  was  '  to  be  run  for  on  Milfield 
Plain,'  on  2C)th  October,  1723,^  and  Milfield  races  were  held  as  late  as  1790. ^ 

'  Newcastle  Couraiit,  14th  October,  1723.     Cf.  Proceedings  of  Newcastle  Antiq.  3rd  series,  vol.  v.  p.  24. 
-  A  bill  of  Milfield  Races,  1790,  is  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Grey  of  Milfield. 



HethpooU  to-day  is  a  township  without  a  village,  and  the  sole 
inhabitants  are  the  dwellers  in  a  small  country  house,  a  farm,  and  a  few 
scattered  shepherds'  cottages. ^  In  earlier  days  it  must  have  been  far 
more  populous,  for  in  the  Lay  Subsidy  Roll  of  1296  no  less  than 
eighteen  persons  were  assessed,  and  their  chattels  were  valued  at 
£48  i6s.  2d.,  and  this  despite  the  fact  that  none  of  the  chief  land- 
owners possessed  moveables  in  the  vill.^  Still,  despite  its  greater  popu- 
lation, it  had  no  greater  part  in  the  history  of  the  times  then  than 
now,  save  from  the  fact  that  it  lay  close  up  to  the  Scottish  border. 
Perhaps  the  inhabitants  were  in  consequence  a  little  more  turbulent 
than  their  successors  of  a  later  age.  At  one  assize  in  1293  for  instance 
there  were  two  cases  of  murder  by  night,  for  John  Scheles  had  slain  a 
clerk,  William  son  of  Christine,  by  striking  him  on  the  head  with  a 
sword,  and  John  Merlyon  had  treated  Astinus  Forester  in  a  similar 
manner.  One  of  these  criminals  was  a  man  of  some  little  sub- 
stance, for  his  goods  were  valued  at  33s.  yd.*  Some,  like  Thomas 
Lightharness,  were  often  in  trouble,  now  for  trespass  on  the  vicar's 
property,  now  involved  with  his  lord  in  preventing  turves  being  cut, 
now  accused  of  robbery  with  violence  as  far  away  as  Edlingham.^ 
In  1303  there  is  further  record  of  a  violent  death,  when  Isabel,  widow 
of  John  son  of  Hugh,  was  striving  to  bring  home  the  death  of  her 
husband   to   the   agency   of   Richard,   son   of   Abraham,   of   Hethpool.^ 

Such  incidents  suggest  a  turbulence  above  the  normal,  and  this 
doubtless  was  aggravated  by  the  constant  state  of  warfare  which  an 
undefended  border  place  such  as  this  experienced.  Of  raids  during  the 
middle  ages  we  know  nothing,  save  for  the  record  of  devastated  lands. 
In  1342  Hethpool  is  reported  as  having  been  'for  the  most  part  devas- 
tated by  the  Scots,  rebels  and  enemies  of    the  king' ;'  the  same  tale  was 

1  Earlier  Helhpol,  i.e.  pool  under  Great  Hetha.  The  old  forms  accord  with  the  local  pronunciation  and 
show  Heathpool  to  be  a  barbarism  of  the  Ordnance  Map. 

=  The  Census  returns  are  :  1801,38;  1811,46;  1821,42;  1831,43;  1841,51;  1851,44;  1861.  21  ; 
1871,  32;    1881,  14;    1891,  II  ;    looi,  17;    1911,  20.       The  township  comprises  1 123780  acres. 

'  Lay  Subsidy  Roll,  1296,  fols.  107-108. 

*  Assize  Boll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  pp.  64,  70. 

*  Coram  liege  Rolls,  No.  123,  m.  7,  No.  142.  m.  3 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxiii.  pp.  277,  578-579. 
'  Cal.  o]  Patent  Rolls,  1302-1307,  pp.  379,  439  ;   Cal.  of  Fine  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  53S. 

'  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  viii.  p.  237. 
Vol.  XI.  32 


told  in  1385  and  1399/  and  in  1385  it  was  stated  that  nothing  had 
been  levied  there  for  the  last  two  years  on  account  of  tlie  destruction 
and  burning  of  the  Scots. ^  In  1429  the  lands  of  the  township  were 
once  more  waste. ^  During  the  sixteenth  century  some  relief  was  afforded 
by  the  tower  of  refuge  which  had  been  built  as  early  as  1415.^  In  1541 
this  was  described  as  'a  lytle  stone  house  or  pyle  whiche  ys  a  greatc 
releyffe  to  the  tennants  therof,'^  and  it  figures  outside  the  ring  of 
fortresses  in  Christopher  Dacre's  plan  of  border  fortifications.^  As  it 
stands  to-day,  a  small  square  tower  ruined  save  for  the  ground  floor, 
it  gives  an  impression  of  strength  rather  than  roominess.  Indeed  it  is 
so  small  as  to  have  been  useless  save  for  a  sudden  and  short  emergency. 
It  was  evidently  for  the  use  of  the  locality  and  not  part  of  the  defences 
of  the  border.  • 

That  the  township  suffered  heavily  during  the  Scottish  incursion  of 
1513  is  to  be  gathered  from  a  report  of  Sir  William  Eure  in  1541  that 
it  had  been  'replenished'  since  Flodden  Field,  and  that  the  Scots  no 
longer  pastured  their  cattle  along  the  East  March  with  impunity,"  but 
a  month  or  two  later  he  had  to  recount  how  a  company  of  the  Scottish 
clan  of  Ker,  including  the  laird  of  Cessford's  brother,  with  a  band  of 
60  or  80  '  light  yonge  men  '  had  come  to  Mindrum  and  Hethpool,  '  twoo 
of  your  gracis  uttermoste  plenishide  townes,'  and  had  burnt  a  house 
and  carried  off  prisoners  and  cattle,  'myndinge,  as  it  is  thought,  and  as 
they  saide  theyme  selves,  to  provoke  warre  bitwene  this  youre  gracis 
realme  of  Englande  and  the  realme  of  Scotlande.'^  Again  in  1568 
Captain  Carvell  wrote  to  Drury,  'this  present  Saturday  about  three  in 
the  afternoon  the  Scots  ran  (a  foray)  at  Hethpool,  and  slew  one  man 
and  hurt  others  and  drove  away  threescore  nolte.'  Though  pursued  and 
engaged,   the  raiders  made  their  way  back  to  Scotland   with   the  stolen 

•  Inq.  p.m.  8  Ric.  II.  No.  ig — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  127-128  ;    Im].  p.m.  22  Ric.  II.  No. 
17 — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  230. 

=  Inq.  p.m.  8  Ric.  II.  No.  19 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  127-128. 

'  L.T.  Remembrancer's  Records,  18  Hen.  VI.  No.  xxv. —  Ford  Tithe  Case.  p.  236. 

*  List  of  Castles,  1415— Border  Holds,  p.  17.  '  Survey  of  the  Border,  i^^i—I^order  Holds,  p.  32. 
«  Photograph — Border  Holds,  pp.  78-79. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  xvi.  p.  478.     In  the  same  year  Hethpool  is  reported  to  contain 
'6  husband  lands  newe  plenyshed.'     Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  32. 

'  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  xvi.  p.  589  ;   Hamilton  Papers,  vol.  i.  p.  107. 



cattle. 1  In  1596  the  enemy  was  very  bold,  his  bands  'never  leave 
riding  day  or  night,'  and  on  June  9th  'the  Carres,  Younges  and  Bumes 
took  away  from  Hethpoole  40  kyen  and  oxen,  and  killed  one  man  shot 
with  a  piece.'- 

With  this  incident  the  curtain  rings  down  on  the  border  raids  in 
Hethpool,  and  henceforward  we  have  no  glimpse  of  the  township  filling 
a  part  in  the  drama  of  national  history.  But  just  before  the  close  of 
this  period  it  had  attracted  the  attention  of  the  privy  council  for  a 
moment.  In  1577  that  body  wrote  to  Sir  Robert  Constable  commending 
him  for  his  'wise  handling  of  a  boye  of  Hethpool,  suborned  by  his 
parents  to  conterfet  to  be  domme  and  lame  and  to  abuse  the  people.' 
He  had  compelled  the  parents  and  child  to  make  open  confession  of 
their  fault,  and  had  taken  steps  to  secure  the  person  of  'a  Scottishe 
priest  popishe,  accused  by  the  saide  boye  to  be  a  chief  doer  of  the 
same.'  Wherefore  the  lords  of  the  council  'thinke  it  very  mete  that 
he  deUver  the  boye  and  his  parents  to  such  as  shal  be  sent  for  them  to 
be  carried  to  Kelsey  and  Yedworth,  as  is  required  on  the  Scottishe 
parte,  and  after  dewe  acknowledge  of  the  abuse  in  those  places,  then  to 
be  sent  againe  to  him  to  be  restored  to  their  dwellings  upon  bandes  and 
good  sureties  for  their  better  behaviour  hereafter  ;  and  as  for  the 
priest,  when  their  lordships  shall  understand  that  he  hath  taken  him, 
they  shall  have   furder  direction   from   their  lordships   for  him.'^ 

Hardly  at  any  time  in  its  history  have  the  owners  of  the  township 
been  resident.  In  the  sixteenth  century  a  branch  of  the  Storey  clan 
seems  to  have  dwelt  there,  for  there  is  mention  of  a  Sandy  Storey  of 
Hethpool  in  1537,*  and  about  the  same  time  of  eleven  residents  recorded 
no  less  than  seven  bore  this  surname.^  Towards  the  middle  of  the 
century  there  is  mention  of  Robert  Storey  of  Hethpool,^  and  Ralph 
Storey  appears  there  in  1655.'  Again  in  the  later  eighteenth  and  early 
nineteenth  centuries  the  Reeds,  having  ceased  to  be  owners  of  the 
property,  came  back  as  tenants.^ 

'  Cal.  of  Slate  Papers,  Foreign,  1556-1558,  p.  515.  '  Cat.  of  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  137,  148. 

'  Ads  of  Privy  Council,  vol.  ix.  pp.  335-336.         '  Letters  and  Papers  of  Hen.  VIII.  vol.  xiii.  pt.  i.  p.  182. 
^  Ibid.  vol.  vi.  p.  497.  •  Northern  Visitations,  p.  99. 

'  P.K.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges  Division,  bundle  376,  No.  67. 
'  See  Genealogy  of  Reed  of  Hethpool,  pp.  ^58-239. 


Descent  of  the  Manor. — Hethpool, '  a  beautiful  highland  place '  as 
one  of  its  eighteenth  century  owners  called  it.^  was  parcel  of  the  barony 
of  Muschamp,  and  part  was  subinfeudated,  part  let  out  in  socage,  and 
part  retained  in  demesne.  In  1212  Robert  Muschamp  held  it  in  capite, 
having  retained  in  his  own  hands  less  than  a  quarter  of  the  whole 
manor.  One  quarter  was  held  of  him  in  fee  by  Odinel  Ford,  half  a 
carucate  was  held  by  Stephen  Coupland  for  the  twentieth  of  a  knight's 
fee,  while  in  socage  Thomas  of  Hethpool  held  two  bovates  and  Ralph 
and  Patrick  together  held  a  moiety  of  the  township. ^  Still  it  would 
seem  that  Robert  contemplated  residence  there  from  time  to  time,  for 
he  gave  to  the  priory  of  Kirkham  and  the  church  of  Kirknewton  all 
tithes  of  his  forest  of  Hethpool  and  the  land  and  mill  there,  that  is 
tithes  of  all  the  progeny  of  cows,  mares  and  pigs,  together  with  tithes 
of  cheese  and  butter  and  other  titheable  things,  in  return  for  permis- 
sion to  have  in  the  chapel  of  Hethpool  a  chantry  for  his  own  chaplain 
at  all  times  that  he  and  his  wife  were  there. ^  It  is  therefore  obvious 
that  even  at  this  early  date  a  chapel  had  been  provided  for  the  spiritual 
needs  of  the  vill.  When  Robert  died,  the  portion  originally  retained  in 
the  chief  lord's  hands  was  practically  all  let  out,  save  the  site  of 
the  court,  of  which  the  herbage  was  valued  at  2od.  Eleven  cottars, 
each  with  a  toft  and  croft,  paid  i6s.  yearly  and  were  bound  to  fold 
the  lord's  horses,  a  duty  valued  at  22d.  Two  oxgangs  were  held  by 
a  widow  in  drengage  at  a  rent  of  4s.,  and  there  were  two  other 
drengage  holdings  paying  two  marks  at  Martinmas.  The  demesne 
meadow  was  valued  at  half  a  mark  and  the  brewery  returns  at  13s.  4d. 
yearly,  making  in  all  a  rent  roll  of  £3  los.  2d.^  The  history  of  this 
property  is  the  same  as  that  of  Wooler.  The  share  of  Isabel  Ford 
was  four  farmholds,  paying  yearly  4s.  3d.,  and  the  third  part  of  the 
brewhouse  valued  at  5s.,  the  third  of  a  meadow  valued  at  2s.  2|d., 
and  i6d.  of  the  service  of  John  of  Hethpool,^  or  as  it  was  described  a 
few  years  later,  4s.  3d.  rent  and  a  third  of  a  meadow  worth  2s.  2|d., 
and  of  the  toUage  of  drengages  worth  4s. ^      This  holding  on  her  death 

'  Aulobioi;raphy  of  Dr.  Alexander  Carlyle,  ed.  J.  H.  Burton  (London,  and  Edinburgh),  1910,  p.  429. 
'  Testa  de  Xerill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  210-211,  219.  '  Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  83. 

*  Inq.  p.m.  39  Hen.  IH.  No.  40 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  371. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  35  Hen.  HI.  No.  41 — Bain,  Cat.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  335  ;    Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  54. 
^  Inq.  p.m.  39  Hen.  IH.  No.  40 — Bain,  Cal.  of  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  375  ;   Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  i.  p.  92  ; 
Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  223. 


was  exactly  halved  between  Isabel  Huntercumbe  and  her  two  nieces 
Muriel  and  Margery,  the  farmholds  of  Michael  le  Vacher  and  Henry  son 
of  Giles  being  assigned  to  the  former,  and  those  of  Ralph  son  of  Michael 
and  Elias  son  of  Michael  to  the  latter.  The  service  of  John  of  Hethpool 
was  divided  between  the  two,  that  portion  assigned  to  Isabel  being  valued 
at  8d.  the  other  at  yd.i  When  Muriel  died,  her  share  of  this  inheritance, 
which  passed  to  her  sister  Margery,  or  Mary  as  she  was  later  called, 
was  returned  at  £=,  gs.  rent  of  assize,  not  counting  profits  of  court.^ 
Thus  the  demesne  lands  of  Hethpool  were  like  the  manor  of  Wooler 
divided  into  moieties,  one  held  by  Nicholas  Graham  and  his  wife 
Mary,    and   the   other   by   William   Huntercumbe  and   his  wife   Isabel. 

The  moiety  of  Mary  and  Nicholas  Graham.— The  manorial 
Uberties  in  Hethpool  claimed  by  Nicholas  Graham  in  the  Quo  Warranto 
enquiry  extended  only  to  the  amendment  of  the  assize  of  beer,^  and 
henceforth  the  property  shared  the  fate  of  the  Graham  moiety  of 
Wooler,  being  described  in  1306  as  a  several  pasture,  divers  free 
tenants  rendering  9s.  lod.,  two  cottars  rendering  4s.  and  a  brewery,-* 
and  in  1342  as  three  cottages,  6s.  rent  and  6  acres  of  meadow,  which 
used  to  render  6s.  6d.,  but  now  nothing  thanks  to  Scottish  devastations." 
When  Philip  Darcy  died  in  1399,  his  widow's  dower  in  the  vill  consisted 
of  one  acre  and  a  half  and  one  rood  of  meadow,  one  waste  cottage, 
and  £2  2s.  2|-d.  rent  issuing  from  the  lands  in  the  township  belonging 
to  Sir  Roger  Heron,  together  with  rents  and  services  of  free  tenants 
belonging  to  the  lord  Darcy.«  Again  when  the  widow  of  John  Darcy 
died  in  1454,  she  was  seised  in  her  own  right,  in  addition  to  her  dower, 
of  one  acre  of  land  held  of  John  Galley  by  fealty  only,  valued  at 
4d.  yearly."  Ultimately  the  inheritance  was  divided  between  Philip 
Darcy 's  two  daughters  Elizabeth,  who  married  Sir  James  Strangways,  and 
Margery,    who    married    Sir   John    Conyers. 

The  Conyers  moiety  of  the  Graham  moiety. — Sir  John  Conyers 
died    in     1390,     having    outlived    his    wife    and    his    grandson    William 

'  Inq.  p.m.  39  Hen.  III.  No.  40 — Bain,  Cal.  oj  Documents,  vol.  i.  pp.  37O.  378. 

-  Iiiq.  p.m.  20  Edw.  I.  No.  26 — Stevenson,  Scottish  Documents,  vol.  i.  p.  258  ;    Compotus  Thomae  de 
Normanville — Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  230. 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I.— Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  1S1-182  ;    Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  pp.  33.  38;. 
*  Cat.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  iv.  p.  237.  s  Cal.  of  Inq.  p.m.  vol.  viii.  p.  237. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  22  Kic.  II.  No.  17 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  .xx.wiii.  pp.  331-332,  336. 
'  Inq.  p.m.  32  Hen.  VI.  No.  15 — Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  237. 


succeeded  to  the  property, ^  but  from  this  time  forward  we  lose  sight  of 
it,  though  it  probably  fared  the  fate  of  Cheviot.  At  any  rate  when  in 
1611  Claudius  Forster  sold  what  had  been  the  Conyers  moiety  of  the 
forest  to  Sir  Ralph  Grey  of  Chilhngham,  he  included  'Hethpool  '  therein. ^ 
The  Hunterciunhe  moiety. — The  part  of  the  demesne  lands  of 
Hethpool,  allotted  to  William  Huntercumbe  and  his  wife  Isabel,^  were 
handed  down  with  their  share  of  Woofer  to  their  son  Walter,  who  was 
granted  free  warren  in  all  his  demesne  lands  there  in  1290,*  and  success- 
fully maintained  his  right  thereto  in  the  Quo  Warranto  inquiry  of  1293.^ 
For  some  time  he  was  in  occupation  of  most  of  the  demesne  lands,  as 
Nicholas  Graham  and  his  wife  Mary  gave  him  for  the  term  of  his  life 
1,000  acres  of  pasture  and  100  acres  of  wood  in  the  township.  In  1305 
they  accused  him  of  wasting  the  woods,  and  on  his  refusal  to  appear  in 
answer  to  the  charge,  the  sheriff  was  ordered  to  go  in  person  to 
Hethpool  and  hold  an  inquiry  by  jury*  of  inquest.  After  her  husband's 
death  Mary  tried  to  re-enter  on  her  property  thus  leased,  but  Walter 
pleaded  his  life  interest,  though  he  wrongly  treated  the  property  as 
though  it  had  belonged  to  Nicholas,  and  called  John  Graham,  his  son, 
to  warrant,  whereas  John  could  have  no  interest  in  the  lands  till  after 
his  mother's  death. ^  Relations  between  the  two  parties  were  evidently 
very  strained,  as  in  the  same  year  Mary  sued  her  life  tenant  for  having 
stolen  her  cattle.'  Walter's  widow,  Ellen,  at  his  death  was  granted 
'the  hamlet  of  Hethpole'  in  dower  by  the  crown  with  the 
consent  of  Nicholas  Neubaud  his  nephew  and  heir.**  The  last  named, 
who  assumed  the  name  of  Huntercumbe,  sold  his  reversion  of  Hethpool 
as  well  as  the  rest  of  his  property,  to  Sir  John  Lilburn  in  1326,^ 
having  two  years  previously  agreed  to  settle  it  on  his  son  John,  who 
had  been  betrothed  to  Sir  John's  daughter  Constance,  provided  that  he 

'  Cal.  of  Inq,  p.m.,  second  series,  vol.  i.  p.  260.  -  Lambert  MS. 

'  William  commuted  the  tithes  of  herbage  and  hunting  on  Hethpool  moor  for  half  a  mark  sterling  paid 
annually  to  the  canons  of  Kirkham.     Kirkham  Cartulary,  fol.  83. 
'  Cat.  oj  Charier  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  2S2. 

*  Assise  Roll,  21  Edw.  I, — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xvii.  p.  33,  vol.  xviii.  p.  387  ;  Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i. 
pp.  132-133  The  document  as  printed  in  Ford  Tithe  Case,  p.  225,  makes  him  claim  the  amendment  of  the 
assize  of  beer,  but  this  is  probably  a  fault  of  transcription,  as  the  originals  put  this  as  part  of  the  claim  of 
Nicholas  Graham. 

'  De  Banco  Rolls,  Xo.  155,  m.  219,  No.  158,  m.  254do,  No.  163,  m.  255 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxvii. 
pp.  70-71,  i57->58,  4(>-'- 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  164,  m.  28 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxvii.  p.  .174. 

*  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1313-1318,  p.  15. 

»  Inq.  A.Q.D.  20  Edw.  II.  No.  21 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  399  ;  Cal.  0}  Patent  Rolls,  1324-1327,  p.  303  ; 
Pedes  Finium,  y  Edw.  III.  N'o.  41 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  91-94. 


could  defeat  the  estate  of  Richard  Neubaud  therein. ^  Richard  had  an 
undoubted  claim  to  the  reversion  of  Lowick,  but  what  his.  rights  in 
Hethpool  were  is  unknown.  In  any  case  Sir  John  was  compelled  to 
bring  an  action  in  1328  to  call  on  Nicholas  to  keep  the  terms  of  the 
sale,  an  action  which  the  latter  could  not  resist. ^  The  fine  by  which 
the  lands  were  conveyed  was  recorded  again  in  May,  1334,^  as  though 
the  dispute  was  still  unsettled,  but  in  July  of  that  same  year  Thomas 
Heton  was  pardoned  for  entering  without  licence  into  the  manor  of 
Hethpool  after  a  grant  by  Nicholas  Huntercumbe  of  the  remainder  and 
by  Ellen  of  her  life  interest  therein.*  Nicholas  Huntercumbe  had 
evidently  been  playing  a  double  game  with  his  property  in  Hethpool, 
but  why  his  conveyance  to  Sir  John  Lilburn  did  not  hold  good  is 
inexplicable,  since  Richard  Neubaud's  alleged  prior  claim  was  not  pressed. 
The  fact  remains,  that  the  sale  to  the  Heton  family  was  effective,  since 
the  name  of  Lilburn  appears  no  more  in  connection  with  the  demesne 
lands.  Thomas  Heton  however  was  not  seised  of  them  when  he  died  in 
1353.^  3,s  he  had  seemingly  alienated  them  during  his  lifetime  to  his 
illegitimate  son  Thomas.®  At  any  rate  this  Thomas  died  in  1362,  seised 
of  a  moiety  of  the  lordship  and  vill  of  Hethpool,  held  in  capite  by 
service  of  a  sixth  of  a  knight's  fee,  valued  in  ordinary  times  at  £10 
per  annum.  His  heir  was  his  son  Henry,  a  minor,  and  the  rents  and 
profits  were  granted  by  the  crown  to  Sir  Alan  Heton,  brother  of  Thomas. 
By  1385  Henry  was  twenty-two  years  old,  and  it  seems  that  liis  uncle 
was  unwilling  to  relinquish  the  property,  for  another  inquest  was  held 
in  that  year,  presumably  to  establish  the  former's  right  to  his  inheri- 
tance.'' By  this  time,  too,  his  mother  Joan  was  probably  dead,  for  no 
mention  is  made  of  the  dower  assigned  to  her  in  1362  of  a  third  part 
of    200    acres    of  land    in    the    township.^     This    Henry    Heton    died    in 

'  Cat.  of  Close  Rolls,  1323-1327,  pp.  316-318.  *  P.R.O.  De  Banco  Roll.  Xo.  268,  m.  5. 

'  Pedes  Finium,  g  Edw.  III.  No.  41 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  91-94. 

*  The  name  is  given  as  'Eton.'     Col.  of  Patent  Rolls,  1330-1334,  p.  566. 

^  Inq.  p.m.  27  Edw.  III.  No.  66 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  77. 

"  For  the  pedigree  of  the  Heton  family  see  N.C.H.  vol.  ix.  p.  116. 

'  Tnq.  p.m.  8  Ric.  II.  No.  19 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  pp.  127-128.  .\  former  inquest  had  been 
held  in  1362  when  Thomas  died,  but  Hethpool  is  not  named  though  probably  '  Hethorpc, '  mentioned  therein, 
is  a  mistake  for  Hethpool.  Inq.  p.m.  36  Edw.  III.  part  i.  No.  88— Hodgson,  jit.  iii.  vol.  i.  pp.  So-Si.  It 
is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  record  of  the  feudal  aid  of  1346  Thomas  Heton  is  said  to  hold  the  moiety  of  the 
vill  of  Hethpool  of  John  Coupland  for  the  eighth  part  of  a  knight's  fee.  Feudal  Aids.  vol.  iv.  p.  65.  John 
Coupland  certainly  held  lands  in  Hethpool  in  capite,  but  this  was  not  the  demesne  lands.  Thomas  may 
have  acquired  some  of  these  lands,  but  they  were  mostly  subinfeudated  to  the  HcrOn  family. 

s  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1360-1364.  p.  3S0. 


possession  of  lands  in  Hethpool  in  1399,^  but  his  son,  who  followed  him 
to  the  grave  two  years  later,  held  nothing  in  the  township  at  his  death, - 
and  there  is  no  evidence  showing  to  whom  the  property  had  been  alienated, 
though  there  is  some  possibility  that  it  went  to  Henry's  first  cousin, 
Elizabeth,  eldest  daughter  of  Sir  Alan  Heton.  Alan  had  himself  held 
certain  lands  in  Hethpool  by  the  gift  of  his  father  in  1336,'  but 
strangely  enough  this  holding  is  not  mentioned  in  the  inquisition  taken 
at  his  death,  though  in  the  partition  of  his  estates  among  his  three 
co-heiresses  in  1389  several  lands  and  tenements  in  Hethpool,  valued 
at  £10  a  year,  were  allotted  to  his  eldest  daughter  Elizabeth  and  her 
husband  Sir  John  Fenwick.'*  From  the  fact  that  the  value  here  put 
upon  the  estate  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  given  to  the  moiety  in 
1385,  it  would  seem  that  this  was  indeed  the  moiety  itself, 
Sir  Alan  Heton  was  not  a  very  particular  person,  and  he  may 
have  managed  to  wrest  the  estate  from  his  nephew  in  1385  on  the 
strength  of  the  crown  grant,  which  was  presumably  only  for  the  dura- 
tion of  the  latter's  minority.  Be  this  as  it  may,  three  inquests  were 
taken  on  the  lands  of  Elizabeth  Fenwick  between  1409  and  1424,  which 
varying  enormously  as  to  the  lands  held  by  her,  agree  in  giving  her 
a  third  of  the  vill  of  Hethpool.^  This  must  have  shared  the  fate  of 
the  Fenwick  portion  of  Lowick,  though  it  is  not  mentioned  again  till 
1596  when  it  was  owned  by  John  Denton  of  Cardew  who  had  leased 
it  to  Sir  Cuthbert  Collingwood.^  This  John  Denton,  the  historian  of 
Cumberland,  died  in  1618  seised  of  a  third  part  of  the  manor  of  Heth- 
pool with  lands  and  tenements  to  the  same  belonging  worth  yearly 
13s.  4d.,'^  but  there  is  no  mention  of  this  property  in  the  inquisition 
taken  at  the  death  of  his  son  and  heir,  Henry  Denton,  in  1627.^  This 
however  is  not  conclusive  evidence  that  he  did  not  own  it,  as  it  had 
not  appeared  in  earlier  inquisitions.^ 

1  Inq.  p.m.  i  Hen.  IV.  No.  4 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  262. 

-  Inq.  p.m.  5  Hen.  IV.  No.  18 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  264. 

'  Pedes  Finiunt,  10  Edw.  III.  No.  48 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxix.  pp  105-107.  These  lands  were 
said  to  be  not  held  in  capile. 

*  Inq.  p.m.  12  Ric.  II.  No.  28 — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxxviii.  p.  176. 

^  Inq.  p.m.  11  Hen.  IV.  No.  2,  13  Hen.  IV.  No.  20,  2  Hen.  VI.  No.  39 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol  ii.  pp. 
266,  270. 

^  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  ii.  p.  269.  '  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  series  ii.  file  382,  No.  17. 

'  Ibid,  file  455,  No.  45. 

»  For  the  details  of  this  descent  see  Dr.  Dendy's  article  '  The  Heton-Fenwick-Denton  Line  of  Descent' 
in  Arch.  Ael.  3rd  series,  vol.  xiv.  pp.  173-190. 


Later  Descent  of  the  Manor.— At  some  time  before  the  close  of  the 
fifteenth  century  the  overlordship  of  Hethpool  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  Greys,  and  one  WilUam  Badby  of  Hethpool  died  in  1479  seised 
of  the  '  manor  of  HethepuU '  worth  yearly  6  marks  and  held  of  Thomas 
Grey  as  of  the  barony  of  Wark.^  Unless  this  was  a  mistake,  the 
township  must  have  been  transferred  from  the  barony  of  Wooler, 
though  the  owners  of  both  moieties  of  the  latter  still  held  certain 
demesne  lands  there.  To  William  Badby  succeeded  his  son  George  aged 
twenty,^  but  the  name  never  appears  again.  The  Greys  on  the  other 
hand  ultimately  became  the  chief  landowners  in  the  vill,  and  according 
to  an  inquisition  of  1518  the}^  had  held  lands  there  since  1358.  In 
1518  Thomas  Grey  died  seised  of  these,  worth  los.  yearly  and  associated 
with  the  manor  of  Wooler, ^  not  of  Wark  as  stated  in  the  inquest  of  1479. 
The  larger  part  of  the  township,  however,  was  held  by  another  branch 
of  the  famih',  for  in  1541  'the  most  parte  of  thys  towne'  belonged  to 
Sir  Roger  Grey  'and  other  ffreholders  have  parcell  of  the  same.'^  This 
probably  was  Sir  Roger  Grey  of  Horton,  whose  will  is  dated  14th 
February,  1540,*  and  the  property  doubtless  passed  to  his  son  Thomas 
who  had  no  rtiale  heirs.  His  second  daughter,  Anne,  married  Robert 
Clavering  of  Callaley,  and  as  this  man  was  returned  as  holding  lands  in 
Hethpool  in  1568,^  they  had  doubtless  come  to  him  as  his  wife's  inherit- 
ance. The  only  other  landowTier  mentioned  in  1568  is  Thomas  Grey  of 
Chillingham,  said  to  hold  the  vill,'^  but  when  he  died  in  1590,  though  he 
held  the  overlordship,  he  only  had  certain  lands  in  demesne.''  In  1597, 
when  Sir  Ralph  Grey  of  Chillingham  was  accused  of  letting  his  lands  in 
Hethpool  to  Scotsmen,  he  declared  that  he  had  'only  one  tenement  in 
the  town,  inhabited  by  one  George  Grey,'  and  that  the  rest  belonged 
to  others.^  The  main  Grey  property  in  Hethpool  seems  to  have  been 
acquired  in  1611,  when  Sir  Claudius  Forster  of  Bamburgh  conveyed  'all 
those  lands  ....  commonly  knowTi  by  the  name  of  ...  .  Hethpole,''' 
probably  the  Conyers  inheritance,  to  Sir  Ralph  Grey,  and  henceforth 
the  Greys  were  the  chief  landowners  in  the  township,  and  in  1663  Lord 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Inq.  p.m.  Edw.  IV.  File  74.  -  Iiiq.  p.m.   10  Hen.  VIII. — Lambert  MS. 

'  Survey  of  the  Border,  1541 — Border  Holds,  p.  32.  '  Wills  and  Inventories,  vol.  i.  p.  115. 

'  Liber  Feodarii,  1568 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  lx.\.  '  Ibid. 

'  Inq.  p.m.  32  Eliz. — Lambert  MS.  *  Cal.  oj  Border  Papers,  vol.  ii.  p.  401. 
»  Lambert  MS. 
Vol.   XL  33 



Grey  was  rated  for  land  and  mill  on  a  rental  of  /70,  while  of  the  two 
other  freeholders  mentioned  only  Arthur  Grey  with  a  rental  of  £20  had 
a  holding  of  any  rateable  size.^  The  identity  of  Arthur  Grey  is  not 
clear,  nor  can  we  tell  to  whom  his  property  passed.  As  to  Lord  Grey's 
holding,  it  had  passed  from  his  heirs  by  early  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
though  the  mill,  situated  as  it  was  in  the  neighbouring  township  of 
Greys'  Forest,  was  still  theirs  in  1873,  when  it  was  sold  by  Lord  Tanker- 
ville  to  Mr.   Alexander  Thompson  of  Kirknewton.^ 

'  Rate  Book,  1663 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

-  Notices  of  Hethpool  by  James  Hardy — Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xii.  p.  407. 


Gilbert  Reed  of  Coupland  Bassington 
and  of  Hethpool  (h)  ;  living  i688. 

William  Reed 
of  Bassington, 
son  and  heir  of 
Gilbert  Reed  of 
Bassington  (/i)  ; 
in  1726  he  re- 
tired to  Heth- 
pool to  end  his 
days  with  his 
nephew,  George 

Mary,  daughter  of : 
George  Alder  of 
Prendwick,  named 
(with  her  husband) 
in  his  father's  will ; 
bond  of  marriage 
17th  .\ugust,  1685; 
named  in  her 
father's  will,  died 
nth  October,  1696 

Lancelot  Reed  of  Hethpool,  voted  : 
at  the  election  of  knights  of  the 
shire  in  169S  and  17 10  (g)  ; 
party  to  deed  i  oth  April,  1 7 1 8  (a) ; 
died  at  Alnwick  and  was  buried 
there  24th  August,  1723  ;  admin- 
istration with  will  annexed 
granted  14th  December,  1725,  to 
Percival  Horsley,  his  son-in-law 
and  creditor. 

Elizabeth  Harper  of  Alnwick, 
widow;  bond  of  mar.  2nd  Sept., 
1697;  described  as  being  a  de- 
cendant  of  Sir  Francis  Brandling 
of  Alnwick  .\bbey,  and  as  such 
seised  of  a  share  in  the  tithes  of 
Denwick,  which  she  and  her  hus- 
band, 2oth  March,  171 7,  released 
to  Thomas  Ilderton  ;  buried  at 
Alnwick  7th  January,  1723/4. 

Gilbert  Reed  of  Hethpool,  died 
14th  June,  1709  [d). 

.  Mary,  wife  of  WilUam  Stanton  of 
Stony  Hills,  Alnwick  (A). 

Sarah,  daughter  of 
Alexander  Colling- 
wood  of  Little  Ryle  ; 
baptised  at  Whitting- 
ham  26th  October, 
1697;  married  there 
22nd  November,  1 7 16. 

George  Reed  of  Hethpool,  voted  in  = 
respect  of  Hethpool  at  the  election 
of  knights  of  the  shire  in  1722  ;  pur- 
chased Hoppen  in  Bamburghshire  in 
1730;  died  loth  December,  1743, 
aged  57  (d)  :  will  dated  17th  Oct- 
ober. 1743.  — - 

Sarah,  only  surviving  child  of  marriage ;     married  Robert 
Roddam,  tenant  of  Ewart. 

Lancelot  Reed  of  Hoppen,  apprenticed  24th  April, 
1753.  to  John  Proctor  of  Berwick,  burgess,  after- 
wards of  Hatton  Wall,  London,  timber  merchant ; 
died  in  London,  November,  1784,  unmarried  and  in- 
testate; administration  of  his  personal  estate  granted 
in  the  prerogative  court  of  Canterbury  14th  Decem- 
ber, 1784,  to  Mary  Reed,  his  sister  and  heiress  at  law. 

George  Reed,  named  in  his  father's  will  ;  died 
s.p.  before  November,  1784,  under  age. 

Margaret,  sister  of 
George  Jeffrey 
of  Holy  Island; 
erected  a  tomb 
to  her  husband 
with  a  Latin 
epitaph  in  Kirk- 
newton  church- 
yard ;  had  a 
jointure  out  of 

Elizabeth,  wife  of  Per- 
cival Horsley  of  Biddle- 
stone,  son  of  William 
Horsley  of  Linsheels, 
parish  of  Alwinton ; 
married  at  Norham, 
18th  May,  1736;  post- 
nuptial settlement 
loth  April,  1718;  he 
was  subsequently 
agent  to  the  family 
of  Riddell  of  Cheese- 
burn  Grange. 

William  Reed,  named  in  his  father's  will  ;  stated  to 
have  been  killed  at  the  taking  of  Guadaloupe;  died 
s.p.  before  November,  1784,  under  age. 

Elizabeth  Reed,  named  in  her  father's  will ;  died  s.p. 
before  November,  1784. 

Mary  Reed,  succeeded  to  Hoppen  as  sister  and  heir  at 
law  of  Lancelot;  died  Charlotte  Street,  Bedford  Square, 
1 8th  November,  1790  ;  by  will  dated  ist  .August, 
1789,  gave  Hoppen  to  her  half  brother,  George  Reed. 



George  Reed,  successively  tenant  of  Lyham  and  of  South  Middleton,  voted  at  =  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Thomas 

the  election  of  knights  of  the  shire  in  1774,  in  respect  of  a  freehold  in 
Milfield ;  to  whom  Miss  Mary  Reed  gave  Hoppen  ;  died  at  South 
Middleton;  buried  8th  January,  1796  (c). 

Werge  of  Horton  in  Glen- 
dale  ;  married  19th  April, 
'754  («)■ 

Thomas  Reed  of  Hoppen,  = 
born  at  Horton  in  Glendale  ;  I 
baptised  28th  April,  1755  (e); 
to  whom  Miss  Mary  Reed 
of  London  gave  Hoppen 
after  his  father's  death,  was 
residing  at  Marden  in  1795  ; 
died  at  Crookham  3rd  June, 
181 7,  aged  62  (c,  d). 

Anne,  daughter  of 
Thomas  Bell,  of  Bel- 
ford  ;  baptised  at 
Belford  2nd  Januarj', 
1756;  married  there 
22nd  June,  1781 ; 
died  at  Rothbury, 
31st  December,  1845, 
aged  90  (c,  d). 

I    I 

Lancelot  Reed,  born  at  Lyham  Westfield  ;  baptised  6th 
February,  1762  (e)  ;  captain  ist  Reg.  Bengal  Native 
Infantry  ;  served  in  Mahratta  War  and  at  siege  of 
Mangalore  ;  party  to  deed  18th  February,  1801  ; 
captain  Glendale  corps  of  Northumberland  Militia, 
1804  ;   died  at  Rothbury  15th  August,  1836  (rf). 

George  Reed,  born  at  Lyham  Westfield ;  bapti.sed  4th 
October,  1768  (e)  ;  stated  to  have  died  in  the  West 

William   Reed,    born   at  Lyham  =  Isabella,    sister     of 

Westfield  ;  baptised  3rd  May, 
1770  (e)  ;  of  Lilburn,  farmer, 
when  he  took  a  lease  of  Heth- 
pool,  1 2th  August,  1823;  died 
6thMarch.  1858;  aged  88  (c,d). 

George  Embleton 
of  Wooler  Haugh 
head  ;  died  8th 
June.  1853,  aged 
73  [c.  d]. 

John  Reed,  born  Lyham  West- 
field;  baptised  25th  May,  1776 
(e);  died  at  South  Middleton,  aged 
39  ;    buried  nth  JIarch,  1814  (c). 

Edwards  Reed,  died  South  Middle- 
ton  ;  buried  17th  January,  1795(c). 

Margaret,  died 
South  Middle- 
ton  ;  buried 
5th  June, 
1795  W- 

George  Reed  of 
Hethpool,  after- 
wards  of  Adelaide, 
South  Australia ; 
born  7th  May, 
1806  ;  died  14th 
August,  1879. 

I  I 
Ann.  Lancelot  Reed,  second  son  ;  born  21st 
July,  1808;  died  at  Hethpool  nth 
March,  1865,  unmarried  (c,  d). 
Gilbert  William  Werge  Reed,  third 
son  ;  born  2gth  September,  1822  ; 
died  unmarried  9th  March,  1873, 
aged  50  (d). 

Wilham     Reed, 
baptised  19th 
January,  1835 

Lancelot   Reed  of  Hethpool,  ■ 
near     Adelaide ;      baptised 
14th     March,      1838      (c)  ; 
living  1909. 

Elizabeth,  born  14th  June,  1804;  married 
17th  April,  1838  (c).  John  Hunt  of 
Thornington,  afterwards  of  Adelaide, 
South  Australia  ;  died  at  Hethpool  22nd 
December,  1881  (d). 
Isabella,  born  20th  August,  1810  ;  resided 
at  Hethpool ;  died  at  Wooler  nth  April, 
1885  (d). 

Jane,  baptised  17th  March,  1836  (c)  ;   living  1909 

at  Hethpool,  near  Adelaide. 
Isabella,  wife  of  Giles,  living  1909,  a  widow, 

at  Hethpool,  near  Adelaide. 

George  Reed  of  Crookham,  : 
born  at  Adderston  Mains ; 
baptised  Belford  3rd  March, 
1783  ;  son  and  heir  ;  party 
to  sale  of  Hoppen  22nd 
June,  1819  ;  of  High  Harro- 
gate in  1853. 

Sarah,  widow  of    

Scratchard  of  Har- 
rogate, and  daughter 

of     Garth     of 

Halifax  ;  died  19th 
May,  1845,  aged  58  ; 
buried  at  Harrogate. 

I     I 

Lancelot  Reed,  born  at  Adderston  Mains; 
baptised  at  Belford  loth  March,  1785;  of 
in  Oxfordshire.,!, 

Leighton  Reed,  born  at  Adderston  Mains ;  baptised 
at  Belford  24th  August.  1787;  Ueut.  Royal 
Marines;  H.M.  Frigate  'Daedalus';  died  Port 
Royal,  Jamaica,  23rd  Dec,  1807,  aged  20  (d). 

Robert  Bell  Reed,  born  =  Lydia,  daughter 

at  Marden ;  baptised 
at  Ford  17th  April, 
1792 ;  a  lieutenant 
in  Northumberland 
Militia ;  was  residing 
at  Alnwick,  1813  ; 
died  at  an  hotel, 
York,  circa  1845. 

of  William 
Atkinson  of 
V  e  a  V  e  r  i  n  g; 
married  8th 

Elizabeth,    bom    Adderston    Mains ;     baptised    at    Belford,     12th 

April,  1782. 
Ann,  born  Adderston  Mains;  baptised  Belford,  14th  March,  1786. 
Bell    Christian,     born    Adderston  Mains  ;       baptised    Belford    19th 

February,     1790;     married    at    Branxton     181 7;     Richard 

Staward  of  Branxton. 
Elizabeth  Mary,  born  at  Marden  ;  baptised  at  Ford  14th  June,  1794  ; 

married  at  Ampton,  Suffolk,    15th   June,  1829  ;     Jonathan  Cooper 

of  Wordwell  Hall. 

(a)  Hethpool  Muniments  of  Title. 

[b)  Hoppen,  Abstract  of  Title. 
(•)  Kirknewlon  Register. 

(d)  Kirknewton  Monumental  Inscription. 

(e)  Chatton  liegislers. 

if)   Autobiography  of  Rev.  Alexander  Carlyle. 
(g)  Northumberland  Poll  Book. 
(A)  V.R.O. Chancery  Proceedings.  Bridges,  Bundle 
78,  No.  18  ;  Bundle  92,  No.  30. 


The  main  portion  of  Hethpool  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  branch  of 
the  family  of  Reed,   the     first   of   whom   to   be  mentioned   in   connection 
therewith  is  Gilbert  Reed  of  Coupland  and  Hethpool,  who  in  1685  settled 
three  messuages  and  farmholds  in  the  township,  fully  stocked  with  corn  and 
cattle,  on  his  son,  Lancelot  Reed,  when  the  latter  married  Mary,  daughter 
of  George  Alder  of  Prendwick.^     Lancelot  was  already  a  landowner  in  the 
township,  as  he  had  bought  a  portion  of  Arthur  Grey's  property  there, 
consisting  of  six  farmholds, ^  and  in  1688,  when  a  dispute  arose  between  the 
landowners  in   Hethpool  and  William  Strother  of  Kirknewton  with  regard 
to  pasturage  on  the  Bell,  otherwise  Hethpool  Common  or  Newton  Common, 
the  whole  township  was  owned   by   the   Greys   and   the    Reeds.      Gilbert 
Reed   owned    two    farmholds,   called   Graham's   Farms,   and   six   cottages, 
William    Reed,    his    son    and    heir,    owned    a    farmhold    called    Wallassis 
Farm,    and    the    reversion    of    the    cottages,    Lancelot    Reed,    the    latter's 
brother,    held   five   farmholds,    three  of  which  were  called  Hall's   Farms, 
the  other  two  being  named  Hallywells  Farms.      He   also  had  the  rever- 
sion of  Graham's  Farms.       There  were  two  Grey  properties.     Katherine 
Grey,   widow   of    Arthur    Grey,    owned    two    farmholds  called   the  Tower 
Lands  or  the  Tower  Farms  and  Rowell's  Cottage,  the  reversion  of  which 
belonged    to    her    son    Arthur,    while    Margaret    Bell,    widow    of    another 
Arthur  Grey  and  now  wife  of   Thomas  Bell,  held  for  life  two  farmholds 
called  the  Towne  Foote  Farm  and  Thompson's  Farm,   with  reversion  to 
her  son  Arthur  who  was  under  age.=*     Most  if  not  all  the  Reed  property 
descended    to    George    Reed,    son   of  Lancelot  and  Mary,    who   lived    at 
Hethpool  and  voted  for  it  in   1721,''   but  before  his   death  he  alienated 
it   to   Sarah,   his  only  child  by  his   first   marriage,    who   married   Robert 
Roddam.     In    1744   husband   and   wife   settled   their   estate   in    Coldburn 
and   Hethpool   on    themselves   and   their  issue   in   tail   male,   and,    failing 
such  male  issue,  on  the  daughters  of  the  marriage  in  common  and  the 
heirs  of  their  bodies. ^     Robert  Roddam  died  at  the  close  of  that  same 
year,   and   was   followed   to   the   grave   by  his   wife  in  1745,  so  that  the 

1  P.K.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  78,  No.  18;  Bond  of  Marriage,  17th  .\ugust,  1685; 
Raine,  Testamenta,  vol.  iv.  p.  185.  The  Alders  were  related  to  the  Claverings  of  Callaley.  Raine, 
Testamenta,  vol.  iv.  pp.  63-65.  185. 

'  P.R.O.  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  544,  No.  10.     Cf.  page  266. 

'  P.  K.C).  Chancery  Proceedings,  Bridges,  bundle  92,  No.  30. 

♦  Northumberland  Poll  Book,  1721,  p.  10. 

'  Counsel's  opinion  on  a  case  concerning  Hethpool,  1766 — Hodgson  MSS.  Kirknewton  Parish,  p.  20. 




Robert    Koddam,  son   of  James    Roddam,  postmaster  of  =  Sarah,  daughter  of  George  Reed  of 

Berwick,  tenant  of  Ewart,  baptised  13th  August.  1711  (6) ; 
mortgaged  Hethpool  and  Coldburn,  14th  November,  1744  ; 
died  of  small-pox  25th  December,  1744  (d) ;  buried  28th 
December,  1744  (/). 

Sarah  (d),  co-heir  ; 
mar.  at  Episco- 
palian Chapel, 
Edinburgh.  31st 
March,  1761  ; 
came  of  age 
1 761  (h) ;  buried 
St.  Nicholas, 
Newcastle,  July, 

Hethpool,  and  only  surviving  child 
of  his  first  marriage — post-nuptial 
settlement  i6th  May,  1744  (s)  ; 
died  of  small-pox  25th  Dec,  1745 
{d)  ;  will  dated  9th  Feb.,  1745. 

John  Erasmus  Blackett  (A), 
alderman  of  Newcastle  ; 
born  1st  January,  1728; 
admitted  freeman  of  the 
.Merchant  Company,  1 753, 
by  patrimony;  died  nth 
June,  1814  (,';);  buried 
St.  Nicholas,  Newcastle ; 
will  dated  17th  Feb., 


Mary,  co-heir  ;  married  Edinburgh,  14th 
October,  1760  (d)  ;  aged  17  (rf)  ;  post- 
nuptial settlement  4th  March,  1^06  (d); 
died  31st  Jan.,  1804,  aged  60  (k);  party 
to  settlement  21st  October,  1796  (s). 

.Alexander  Carlyle, 
D.D.,  minister 
of  Inveresk  (d)  ; 
died  25th  Aug., 
1805  (A) 

WiUiam  Carlyle, 
born  nth  Nov., 
1773  ;  died  in 
infancy  (i). 

Sarah,  born 
I  July,  1761 
died  young 


Jane,  bom 
I  Dec.  1763 
died  young 

Mary  Roddam, 
born  25  Sept., 
1769;  died 
June,  1773  (j). 

15  May, 

1765  ig)  : 

19  May, 
1767,  St. 





3  Sept., 

bur.   St. 
24   June, 

Sarah  (/),  baptised 
6th  July,  1762  (^): 
married  i6th 
June,  1 791  (c),  at 
St.  Nicholas's, 
Newcastle  (/); 
died  17th  Sept- 
ember, 1819;  will 
dated  28th  June, 
i8io  (s). 

Cuthbert  Colling- 
wood,  admiral, 
R.N.;  created 
baron  Colling- 
wood  of  Heth- 
pool and  Cold- 
burn  (!)  ,"  bapt. 
24th  Oct.,  1748 
{q) ;  died  7th 
Mar.,  i8io(»»). 

Patience  Wis?,  ■■ 
baptised  21st 
1763  ;  mar.  St. 
John's  Church, 
22  Aug.,  1782 ; 
living  in  1810 
(n)  ;  vd]l  dated 
6th  Jan.,  1833 

=  Benjamin  Stead  of 
Crowfield,  Suffolk 
(s)  ;  native  of 
Carolina,  U.S.A., 
whither  he  re- 
turned and  died 
s.p.  before  6th  Jan. 
^^i3  i  pre-nuptial 
settlement  20th 
.\ugust,  1782  (s). 

Sarah,  born  May, 
1792  {[}  ;  died 
25th  Novem- 
ber, 1852  (s). 

George  Lewis  Newnham  Collingwood 
(h)  ;  married  30th  May,  i8i6, 
St.  George's,  Hanover  Square, 
London  (s). 

Mary  Patience,  mar- 
ried June,  1817  ; 
died  1 8th  August, 
1823  [t). 

:  Anthony  Denny  («)  ;  pre- 
nuptial  settlement  12th 
J  une,  1 8 1 7  ;  died  at  Flor- 
ence, :8th  Oct.,  1843  (s). 

Sarah  Newnham,  died  November, 

1872  s.p.  (s)  ;   will  9th  March, 
1861  ;      proved     i8th     March, 

1873  (s). 

=(i)  Cuthbert  Collingwood  Hal],  married  9th 
December,  1841  ;  died  February,  1859  (s). 

=(2)  John  Richard  Howell,  married  February, 
1861  (s). 

Mary  Newnham, 
died  infant  and 
unmarried,  in 
1840  (s). 

died    un- 
1831  (s). 

Anthony  Cuthbert  Collingwood  Denny,  ==  Mary  Rendall, 
came  of  age  8th  September,  1839;  |  died  6th  Mar., 
died  22nd  September,  1857  [s).  I      1875  (s). 

.\  r  t  h  u  r 
Denny  (s). 


John  Stephen 
Robinson  (i). 

Cuthbert  Collingwood  Denny,  conveyed  his  moiety  of  Hethpool  to  Mr. 

Morton  in  1879  (s). 

(6)  Berwick  Register. 

(c)  Raine,  Tesiamenta. 

(d)  Dr.  Alexander's  Carlyle' s  Autobiography  (Lon- 

don and  Edinburgh,  1910),  pp.  423-425. 

(e)  Berwickshire  Naturalists'  Club,  vol.  xii.  p.  407. 

(f)  Kirknewlon  Register. 

(g)  St.  Andrew's  Register,  Newcastle. 

(A)  Dr.  Alexander  Carlyle' s  Autobiography,  pp.  430-432. 

(i)    Ibid.  pp.  552-553.  (k)  Ibid.  pp.  601-602. 

(I)  Selection  Jrom  Correspondence  of  Lord  Colling- 
wood, ed.  G.  L.  Newnham  Collingwood 
(London,  1828),  pp.  16-17. 

(m)  Ibid.  p.  569.  (n)  Ibid.  p.  574. 

(0)  Ibid.  p.  233.  (p)  Ibid.  p.  472. 

(q)  Notes  on  Lord  Colhngwood,  by  John  Clay- 
ton— Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xiii.  p.  173. 

(r)  Newcastle  Chronicle,  18th  June,  1791. 

(s)  Hethpool  Deeds. 

{t)    Notes  on  Lord  Collingwood,  by  Jtohn  Clayton 
— Arch.  Aeliana,  N.S.  vol.  xiii.  p.  170. 

(h)  For  the  family  of  Denny,   see  Miscellanea 
Genealogica    et  Heraldica,  N.S.  vol.  iii. 
p.  199. 


estate  devolved  on  their  two  daughters  Sarah  and  Mary,  aged  five  and 
two  respectively.  The  younger  married  Dr.  Alexander  Carlyle  of  Inver- 
esk  in  1760,  but  her  elder  sister  waited  till  she  was  of  age  to  marry 
John  Erasmus  Blackett  in  1761.^  Difficulties  arose  with  regard  to  the 
payment  of  the  Roddam  debts  in  1766,'^  but  this  was  settled  by  Dr. 
Carlyle,  who  mortgaged  his  wife's  moiety  for  £1,000  wherewith  to  pay 
off  the  creditors.^  The  estate  had  recently  been  re-let  to  Ralph  Compton, 
son  of  the  former  tenant,  at  a  rent  of  £283  per  annum,  a  rise  of  no  less 
than  £103  on  the  terms  of  the  last  lease.*  In  1776  Dr.  Carlyle  had  two 
daughters,  and  the  Blacketts  had  then  no  issue,-  but  the  former  outlived 
both  his  wife  and  his  children,  and  the  whole  estate  descended  to  Sarah, 
daughter  of  T.  E.  Blackett  and  wife  of  Cuthbert  Collingwood,  the  famous 
admiral,  who  for  his  services  at  the  battle  of  Trafalgar,  where  he  was 
second  in  command,  was  raised  to  the  peerage  under  the  title  of  Baron 
Collingwood  of  Hethpool  and  Coldburn.^  It  was  just  at  this  time  that 
under  the  Roddam  entail  Lady  Collingwood  had  succeeded  to  Dr.  Carlyle's 
moiety  of  Hethpool,  but  the  other  moiety  was  still  held  by  Mr.  Blackett 
who  outlived  his  son-in-law.^  Though  the  home  of  the  Collingwoods 
was  at  Morpeth  and  later  at  Chirton,'^  the  admiral  took  a  great  interest 
in  Hethpool,  and  soon  after  the  moiety  thereof  came  to  his  wife  he 
wrote  to  her  '  I  wish  some  parts  of  Hethpoole  could  be  selected  for 
plantations  of  larch,  oak  and  beech,  where  the  ground  could  be  best 
spared.  Even  the  sides  of  a  bleak  hill  would  grow  larch  and  fir.  You 
will  say  that  I  have  now  mounted  my  hobby,  but  I  consider  it  as 
enriching  and  fertilising  that  which  would  otherwise  be  barren.'^  Later 
in  the  same  year  he  rejoiced  to  hear  that  Lady  Collingwood  was  trans- 
planting his  oaks  to  Hethpool.  '  If  ever  I  get  back  I  will  plant  a  good 
deal  there  in  patches'  he  promised  himself.^  He  never  did  return, 
and     after     his     death    and    that    of    his    widow,    the   estate    passed    to 

'  Autobiography  of  Alexander  Carlyle  (London  and  Edinburgh,  1910),  pp.  424-425,  553.  .\  short  biography 
of  J.  E.  Blackett  is  to  be  found  in  Welford,  Men  uf  Mark,  vol.  i.  pp.  316-319. 

^  Counsel's  opinion  on  a  case  concerning  Hethpool,  1766— Hodgson  MSS.  Kirhnewlon  Parish,  p.  20. 

»  Hodgson  MSS.  vol.  W,  p.  86. 

*  Autobiography  of  Alexander  Carlyle  ut  supra,  p.  432.  'The  farmhold  called  Heathpoole  and  Cold- 
burn'  was  advertised  to  let  in  1761.     Newcastle  Courant,  loth  January.   1761. 

'  A  selectioyi  Jrom  the  correspondence  of  Lord  Collingwood,  ed.  G.  I..  Newnham  Collingwood  (London, 
1828),  pp.  165-166. 

'  Admiral  Collingwood  kept  up  a  constant  correspondence  with  his  father-in-law  all  through  his  life. 
Ibid,  passim. 

'  Ibid.  pp.  lii,  257.  *  March  21st,  1806.     Ibid.  p.  199.  "  December  20th,  1806.     Ibid.  p.  257. 


their  two  daughters,  Sarah,  wife  of  George  Lewis  Newnham,  who  took 
the  name  of  Colhngwood,  and  Mary  Patience,  who  married  Anthony 
Denny.  Once  more  Hethpool  was  •  divided  into  moieties.  That  of 
the  elder  sister  ultimately  passed  to  her  daughter  Sarah,  who  by  her 
will  dated  March,  1861,  demised  it  to  her  second  husband  John  Richard 
Howell;  that  of  the  younger  descended  to  her  son  Anthony  Colling^vood 
Denny,  who  devised  it  to  his  wife,  and  she  in  turn  to  their  son  Cuthbert 
Collingwood  Denny.  In  1879  the  holders  of  both  moieties  joined  in 
selling  the  whole  property  to  Mr.  Henry  Thomas  Morton,  who  rounded 
off  his  estate  by  buying  the  mill,  which  had  been  the  last  relic  of  the 
Grey  property,  from  Mr.  Alexander  Thompson  in  1895.  On  Mr. 
Morton's  death  in  1898  the  whole  passed  under  his  will  to  the  late 
Earl  Grey,^  whose  executors  sold  it  in  December,  1918,  to  Mr.,  now 
Sir  Arthur  Munro  Sutherland,   Bart. 

One  Quarter  of  the  Manor. — Of  the  lands  not  kept  in  demesne 
by  the  lords  of  Hethpool  the  most  important  part  was  a  quarter  of 
the  manor,  which  in  the  early  thirteenth  century  was  subinfeudated 
to  Odinel  Ford,  who  held  it  together  with  Crookham  and  Kimmerston 
by  one  knight's  fee.^  From  him  it  passed,  as  shown  under  Ford, 
to  William  Heron,  who  when  he  was  making  provision  for  his  sons, 
gave  to  Gilbert  the  manor  of  Ford,  saving  the  lands  which  John 
of  Ewart  held  in  the  vill  of  Hethpool.^  A  record  of  1293  shows  that 
this  meant  that  Gilbert  received  twelve  messuages,  54  acres  of  land 
and  fourteen  acres  of  pasture  in  Hethpool,  while  one  messuage  and 
12  acres  of  land  there  were  withheld,  for  in  that  year  Robert  son  of 
Thomas  of  Hethpool  sued  Gilbert  Heron  for  the  restoration  of  the  former 
and  William  Heron  for  the  restoration  of  the  latter.  \\'illiam  Heron, 
who  took  the  defence  of  both  cases  upon  himself,  proved  by  reference 
to  the  assize  rolls  that  Thomas  had  indeed  held  those  lands,  but  that 
in  1269  he  had  been  hung  for  theft.  His  lands  had  consequently  been 
forfeited  for  a  year  and  a  day  to  the  crown,  prior  to  their  passing  to 
his  lord,  who  however  had  redeemed  them  at  once  by  paying  a  fine  of 

'  The  details  of  the  descent  from  the  Collingwoods  is  taken  from  the  deeds  of  Hethpool. 

*  Testa  de  Nevill — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  2ii. 

'  Dodsworth  MS.  49,  fol.  7  ;   Lansdowne  MS.  326,  fol.  51. 


2^  marks. 1  William  Heron  also  at  the  same  assize  sued  Walter  Hunter- 
cumbe,  Alan  the  Chaplain  and  Thomas  Lightharness  under  a  writ  of 
novel  disseisin  for  having  deprived  him  of  his  right  to  turbary  in  200 
acres   in   Hethpool,   a   right   which   pertained   to   his   holding   there.- 

After  William  Heron's  death,  his  widow,  Mary,  claimed  a  third  of 
Hethpool  as  dower,  the  vill  being  described  as  a  member  of  the  manor 
of  Ford,^  but  Gilbert  in  1299  came  to  an  agreement  with  her  whereby 
Hethpool  was  left  free  of  dower.*  These  lands  seem  to  have  followed 
the  descent  outlined  for  the  manor  of  Ford,  though  there  are  only 
occasional  references  to  them,  doubtless  explained  by  the  above  descrip- 
tion of  it  as  a  member  of  the  manor  of  Ford,  and  therefore 
included  in  the  descriptions  of  the  manor.  In  1335  William 
Heron,  lord  of  Ford,  acquired  two  tofts  and  40  acres  of  land 
in  Hethpool  from  John  Hilton,  in  addition  seemingly  to  his  existing 
possessions  there,^  and  in  1340  he  was  granted  free  warren  in 
what  is  described  as  his  'manor  of  Hethpol.'*'  In  the  accounts 
of  the  feudal  aid  of  1346  the  sons  of  William  Heron,  Thomas 
and  Robert,  were  assessed  for  one  knight's  fee  in  Ford  Crook- 
ham  and  Kimmerston  and  one  quarter  of  Hethpool,  held  of  John 
Coupland,'  and  in  1356  these  two,  who  were  minors,  brought  an  action 
against  Thomas  Sampson  and  many  others  for  wrongful  disseisin  in 
12  messuages,  6  carucates  of  land  and  80  acres  of  meadow  in  the 
township.  The  jury  found  that  the  defendants  had  grazed  their  beasts 
on  the  Heron  lands,  and  had  destroyed  corn  and  grass  to  the  value  of  ;^i3  los., 
but  that  they  had  not  disseised  the  plaintiffs  of  their  messuages,  so  with  that 
impartiality  which  made  justice  so  profitable  in  the  middle  ages,  both 
parties  were  fined,  the  one  for  their  disseisin,  the  other  for  their  false 
accusation  with  regard  to  the  messuages.^  The  two  boys  were  again 
involved    in    litigation    in    1360,    when    they    claimed    rights    of    common 

'  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  115-116.  The  fine  paid  by  William  Heron 
is  recorded  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  but  the  criminal  is  called  Robert  of  Hethpool.  Pipe  Roll,  55  Hen.  III. — 
Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  iii.  p.  292. 

2  Assize  Roll,  21  Edw.  I. — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xviii.  p.  252-253. 

'  De  Banco  Roll,  No.  118  m.  2do — Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  287-288. 

*  Dodsworth  MS.  49,  fol.  2  ;   Lansdowne  MS  326,  fol.  45.     For  details  see  pages  372-373. 

'  Lansdowne  MS.  326,  fol.  51.  *  Cat.  oj  Charter  Rolls,  vol.  iv.  p.  469. 

'  Feudal  Aids,  vol.  iv.  p.  57.     The  aid  was  not  collected  till  some  years  after  1346. 

8  Assize  Roll,  Divers  Counties,  28-32  Edw.  III.— Duke's  Transcripts,  vol.  xx.  pp.  537-538;  Originalia 
31  Edw.  III.  Rot.  24 — Hodgson,  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  p.  324. 


pasture  on  moor  and  pasture  belonging  to  Elizabeth,  heiress  of  Nicholas 
Meinill,  and  her  husband  Peter  Mauley.  The  defendants  used  everj' 
possible  device  to  prevent  the  case  being  tried.  First  they  claimed 
that,  as  the  lands  on  which  common  was  claimed  were  entailed  on  the 
heirs  of  their  bodies  \\ith  remainder  to  the  king,  the  latter  possessed 
the  fee  simple  and  should  be  consulted  before  the  proceedings  went 
further  ;  then,  the  king  having  given  permission  for  the  case  to  be 
heard,  they  placed  themselves  on  the  assize,  which  necessitated  the 
summoning  of  recognitors  from  Hethpool  to  Newcastle ;  finally  they 
demanded  the  quashing  of  the  whole  proceeding  on  the  ground  that  the 
original  writ  summoning  the  assize  was  issued  by  the  sheriff,  Roger  of 
Widdrington,  who  was  a  relative  of  the  plaintiffs.  As  a  result  the  case 
was  again  adjourned,  and  doubtless  the  unfortunate  brothers  abandoned 
it   in   despair. 1 

This  is  the  last  we  hear  of  this  holding  in  the  hands  of  the  Herons, 
for  though  the  lord  of  Ford  reappears  again  in  1399  in  Hethpool  in  the  person 
of  Sir  Roger  Heron,  his  lands  were  not  then  held  of  the  heirs  or  assigns  of  John